Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 19:05:15 GMT Server: NCSA/1.5.1 Last-modified: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 15:40:28 GMT Content-type: text/html Content-length: 370900 This is my homepage

Myron A. Calhoun's minimal homepage:

Five boxes preserve our freedoms: soap, ballot, witness, jury, and cartridge.

Associate-Professor Myron A. Calhoun, PhD (EE, Arizona State University, 1967)
(913) 532-6350 (work), (913) 532-7353 (FAX), (913) 539-4448 (home)
Amateur packet radio: W0PBV@N0ARY.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM
NRA Life Member and Certified Instructor (Home Firearm Safety, Rifle, Pistol)


KSU STUDENTS: For information about CIS 362 or CIS 490, login to YOUR "mainframe" (CNS UNIX) account, change directory ("cd") to MY account ("~mcalhoun") and then to the subdirectory ("CIS-362" or "CIS-490") of your choice, and read (use "vi", "more", "less", "cat", "grep", etc.) whatever you want to see.

Why don't I fix it so you can reach that stuff by simply "clicking" on an icon here? Because part of learning "computing" is learning to use (some of) the tools of the trade, and I want you to learn how to "move around" and do other things in a UNIX environment. "Clicking" on an icon just isn't enough.


and his maximal quotation pages:

I hope you find the following quotes interesting/useful/informative/....
If you have any additions and/or corrections, please be sure to let me know. (mac@cis.ksu.edu)
Real Soon Now (tm?), I hope to break this monstrous blob into several smaller chunks.
--Myron.
Dr. Tibor R. Machan, professor of philosophy at Auburn University, in "The Welfare State and the News, as reported in the December, 1996, issue of the "Freeman" magazine:
Except for the editors of the few papers and magazines that champion liberty, none of those in charge will encourage truly critical scrutiny of mainstream political affairs. None will raise such questions as "Why should government deprive the successful of the fruits of their success, or even the fortunate of their good fortune, just because others do not enjoy the same?"

Or who among those who feed off the welfare state so successfully would ever raise the question: "Mr. President, if we spend borrowed money our children will have to be taxed to repay, does this not violate the principle 'No taxation without representation'?"

Would any such journalist raise the question to some politician or bureaucrat: "If in the criminal law it is wrong to punish people unless they have been proven guitly of a crime, why is it right that government regulations may impose enormous economic burdens on people who have done nothing wrong? Isn't this a kind of prior restraint that has no place in a free society?"

What about the question: "If the 14th Amendment prohibits the unequal application of the law, why are producers prohibited from discriminating, while consumers can do so with total impunity? And why can government regulate every profession but the press, arts, and clergy--is this not a built-in inequality, a state-sponsored discrimination?"


Leonard E. Read (1898-1983), Founding President of FEE, the Foundation for Economic Education, said that, in an ideal America, every person should be free:
... to pursue his ambition to the full extent of his abilities, regardless of race or creed or family background.
... to associate with whom he pleases for any reason he pleases, even if someone else thinks it's a stupid reason.
... to worship God in his own way, even if it isn't 'orthodox.'
... to choose his own trade and to apply for any job he wants--and to quit his job if he doesn't like it or if he gets a better offer.
... to go into business for himself, be his own boss, and set his own hours of work--even if it's only three hours a week.
... to use his honestly acquired property or savings in his own way--spend it foolishly, invest it wisely, or even give it away.
... to offer his services or products for sale on his own terms, even if he loses money on the deal.
... to buy or not to buy any service or product offered for sale, even if the refusal displeases the seller.
... to disagree with any other person, even when the majority is on the side of the other person.
... to study and learn whatever strikes his fancy, as long as it seems to him worth the cost and effort of studying and learning it.
... to do as he pleases in general, as long as he doesn't infringe the equal right and opportunity of every other person to do as he pleases.

KEY TO SOME ADDED CODES

{V} = a quote's contents and spelling have been verfied.
{FF} = Founding Father quotes
{LAW} = Law-related quote
{NRA} = NRA quotes
{RKBA} = Quotes upporting the Right to Keep and Bear arms
{HCI} = HCI and other ANTI-gun quotes
{CASE} = Brief description of various court cases (more info is always appreciated!)
{CODE} = Quotation from the USC (United States Code)
From: rdh@sli.com (Robert D. Houk)
Subject: The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the USA

Finding myself in the general neighborhood of Our Great Nation's Murder Capital, with a few spare hours on my hand, I decided to risk life and limb by braving the Throbbing Hoards (of Tourists) and check out just what the Bill of Rights actually does say.

I went to the United State National Archives building and did myself in person personnally look at and peruse the Bill of Rights. The real Bill of Rights. The 200-year-old "paper", signed by John Adams and Frederick Muhlenberg. The document from which were ratified the first ten amendments to the United State Constitution, and in particular, the second amendment protecting the right to keep and bear arms.

I have reproduced below various text bodies leading up to the second amendment, all taken from facsimiles of documents leading up to the Bill of Rights. Text within bracket ("[]") characters is mine, identifying the following verbatim text; text within double brackets ("[[]]") is explanatory comment.

Obviously, I cannot produce a facsimile of the original documents here, the best I can do is to provide an ASCII representation of the body of text. I have preserved the actual grammar, spelling, punctuation, and line breaks as nearly as possible within the constraints of 80-column ASCII terminals.

I have tried very hard to not make any transcription error, proofing the copy several times on different days. But ....
-------------------------------
[James Madison's proposal; June 8, 1789]

The right of the people to keep and
bear arms fhall not be infringed; a
well armed, and well regulated mili-
tia being the beft fecurity of a free
country: but no perfon religioufly
fcrupulous of bearing arms, fhall be
compelled to render military fervice
in perfon.
---------------------------------------------------
[Amendments passed by the House of Representatives; August 24, 1789]

ARTICLE the FIFTH

A well regulated militia, compofed of the body of the People,
being the beft fecurity of a free State, the right of the People to keep
and bear arms, fhall not be infringed, but no one religioufly fcru-
pulous of bearing arms, fhall be compelled to render military fervice
in perfon.

[Recall that, long ago, the letter "s" was often written to look like an "f".
---------------------------------------------------
[Amendments passed by the Senate; September 9, 1789]

ARTICLE the FOURTH

A well regulated militia, being neceffary to the fecurity of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, fhall not be infringed.
----------------------
The BILL of RIGHTS:


The joint resolution of Congress proposing 12 articles as amend-
ments to the Constitution was enrolled on parchment by William
Lambert, a clerk of the House, and is the federal government's
official copy. It was signed by Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg,
Speaker of the House, on September 28, 1789, and by John Adams,
President of the Senate, shortly therafter. The Bill of Rights,
as this parchment copy is now known, is on permanent display in
the Rotunda of the National Archives Building.

[[Note: I did in fact personally examine THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT, known officially as "The Bill of Rights", and the text is EXACTLY as set down below, except for the constraints of an 80-character ASCII terminal as follows:

In the original document, the entire text, including the "Article the Fourth....." text, fits on *ONE* line. I have tried to indicate that detail via the "\~~ " construct: the "\" in conjunction with the end-of-line and following "~~ " do *NOT* appear in the original text.]]

Article the fourth.....A well regulated Militia, being necefsary to the \
~~ security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear \
~~ Arms, shall not be infringed.
-------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE ON RATIFICATION OF THE AMENDMENTS

Eleven states made up the Union when Congress proposed 12 articles to amend the Constitution on September 25, 1789. With the admission of North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Vermont during the ratification period, 11 states had to ratify the articles in order to achieve the three-fourths majority required by the Constitution.

In the ensuing two and one-half years, the first article proposed by Congress was approved by only 10 states, the second by only 6. Articles 3 through 12 received the approval of the necessary 11th state when Virginia ratified them on December 15, 1791. Accordingly, articles 3 through 12 became the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. [[List of states and dates of ratification omitted]]

Three states--Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Georgia--did not ratify the first 10 amendments until the celebration of the Sesquicentennial of the Constitution in 1939.

[Amendment II] [[Twenglish spelling]]

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.
----------------------

And that's the way it is.

Available from the National Archives and Records Service, revised 1980, "The Bill of Rights", ISBN 0-911333-42-8 ($2.50), includes facsimiles of the original documents as above, plus a few other related documents. The notes on ratification and on the Bill of Rights came from this document.

Also available (I bought mine at the National Archives bookstore) is the "Foundations of the Republic", select important United States historical documents, including Mayflower Compact, Declaration of Independence (facsimile), the Constitution (facsimile), Bill of Rights (facsimile), and a few other random documents, no ISBN number, but from Frey Enterprises, 2120 Crestmoor Road--No. 125, Nashville, Tennessee 37215 ($3.95 at the National Archives bookstore, for the "Bicentennial Edition", a largish form page size (10" x 14") on parchmentish paper - you can actually decipher the facimile documents without a needing a magnifying glass!)


An educated Electorate, being necessary to the well-being of a free State, the right of the people to speak and peacefully assemble, shall not be infringed.
--Dave Feustel (feustel@netcom.com)
Fort Wayne, IN (219) 483-1857

From: toby@milton.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw)
Department of Biochemistry and College of Forest Resources
University of Washington, Seattle
Date: 21 Sep 92 00:22:23 GMT
Newsgroups: rec.guns


"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the
prosperity of a free state, the right of the people
to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

Do you conclude from this that only voters may own books?

Do you believe that all "inflammatory" books should be stored in libraries, since no honest person needs such a book at home where a child might read it?

Does this statement make you want to register books, or ban some of them, or prevent them from being read in public?

Should there be a waiting period for the purchase of "dangerous" books, magazines, and newspapers?

Should speed reading courses be restricted to police and military to prevent "assault reading" by citizens?

Do you think that banning legal possession of easily-concealed novels will stop criminals from reading?

Should we stop teaching children to read, since what they might read could be harmful to them?


"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some trans-Atlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us with a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined with a Bonaparte at their head and disposing of all the treasure of the earth, our own excepted, could not by force make a track on the Blue Ridge or take a drink from the Ohio in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up from amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men, we must live through all times, or die by suicide."
--Abraham Lincoln, 1838:

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."

"If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be fixed by decisions of the supreme Court, then the people will have ceased to be their own rulers."
--Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861:

"... the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the supreme Court, ... the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

"If I don't have to do it, it only shows that you don't have to either."

"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing."

"We, the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution."

"Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"
--Abraham Lincoln

"What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence? It is not... the guns of our war steamers, or the strength of our gallant and disciplined army... our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in our bosoms."
--Abraham Lincoln, 1858


So far, no one has been able to verify the following quote:

"1935 will go down in History! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead to the future!"

Adolf Hitler, 1936 Decree: "A decision of the Fuhrer in the express form of a law or decree may not be scrutinized by a judge. In addition, the judge is bound by any other decision of the Fuhrer, provided that they are clearly intended to declare law."

Adolf Hitler, Edict of 18 March 1938 (or 1939?) (can anyone verify this quote?): "... history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"

Adolf Hitler, `Mein Kamph': "If you wish the sympathy of the broad masses, then you must tell them the crudest and most stupid things."


Alan Bock, `Orange County Register': "The median family of four ... paid $4,722 in federal taxes last year. That's enough to pay for a new curtain for the secretary of commerce's office, to bribe a farmer not to plant 38 acres with corn ... seven weeks of salary for a Customs man assigned to save us from the terror of high-quality, low priced foreign TV sets, or the subsidy on 6,000 bushels of wheat to prop up the Soviet regime. Surely civilization would collapse without such essential services."
Albert Einstein, "My First Impression of the U.S.A.", 1921: "The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the Prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this."

Albert Einstein: "Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -- how passionately I hate them!"


Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, 7 October 1789: "The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."
Hamilton didn't argue that a select militia made a general militia unnecessary, but rather that a general militia was insufficient by itself to adequately protect the nation: (Federalist 28 or 29?)

"But so far from viewing the matter in the same light with those who object to select corps as dangerous, were the Constitution ratified, and were I to deliver my sentiments to a member of the federal legislature from this State on the subject of a militia establishment, I should hold to him, in substance, the following discourse:

`The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

Alexander Hamilton, collected in Federalist Paper 28, originally in the 10 January, 1788, "Daily Advertiser": "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defence which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 29 (on the organization of the militia): "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year." {V}{FF}{RKBA}

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 29 (speaking of standing armies): "... if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens." {V}{FF}{RKBA}

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 79 (regarding payment of Judges): "In the general course of human nature, A power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will." {V}{FF}

Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188 (cannot verify!): "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

Alexander Hamilton, advice to jurors to acquit against the judge's instructions: "... if exercising their judgment with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong."

Hamilton, Federalist #84: "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."


Alexis de Tocqueville: "The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

Alexis de Tocqueville: "To commit violent and unjust acts, it is not enough for a government to have the will or even the power; the habits, ideas and passions of the time must lend themselves to their committal."

Alexis de Tocqueville: "Where are we then? The religionists are the enemies of liberty, and the friends of liberty attack religion; the high-minded and the noble advocate subjection, and the meanest and most servile minds preach independence; honest and enlightened citizens are opposed to all progress, whilst men without patriotism and without principles are the apostles of civilization and intelligence. Has such been the fate of the centuries which have preceded our own? and has man always inhabited a world like the present, where nothing is linked together, where virtue is without genius, and genius without honor; where the love of order is confounded with a taste for oppression, and the holy rites of freedom with a taste for law; where the light thrown by conscience on human actions is dim, and where nothing seems to be any longer forbidden or allowed, honorable or shameful, false or true?"


Algernon Sidney (1672): "The only ends for which governments are constituted, and obedience rendered to them, are the obtaining of justice and protection; and they who cannot provide for both give the people a right of taking such ways as best please themselves, in order to their own safety."
Andrew Ford (UseNet): "The price of liberty is, always has been, and always will be blood: The person who is not willing to die for his liberty has already lost it to the first scoundrel who is willing to risk dying to violate that person's liberty! Are you free?"

Andrew Ford (UseNet): "Without either the first or second amendment, we would have no liberty; the first allows us to find out what's happening, the second allows us to do something about it! The second will be taken away first, followed by the first and then the rest of our freedoms."


Andrew Jackson, 8th Annual Message to Congress (Dec 5, 1836): "It is apparent from the whole context of the Constitution as well as the history of the times which gave birth to it, that it was the purpose of the Convention to establish a currency consisting of the precious metals. These were adopted by a permanent rule excluding the use of a perishable medium of exchange, such as certain agricultural commodities recognized by the statutes of some States as tender for debts, or the still more pernicious expedient of paper currency."
Aristotle: "Money being naturally barren, to make it breed money is preposterous, and a perversion from the end of its institution, which was only to serve the purpose of exchange and not of increase. . . Usury is most reasonably detested as the increase arises from the money itself, and not by employing it to the purpose for which it was intended."
Benjamin Disraeli: "The world is governed by far different personages than what is imagined by those not behind the scenes."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759 (Franklin B. Historical Review of Pennsylvania. 1759): "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." {V}{FF}{RKBA}

Benjamin Franklin, before the Constitutional Convention, (June 2, 1787): "... as all history informs us, there has been in every State & Kingdom a constant kind of warfare between the governing & governed: the one striving to obtain more for its support, and the other to pay less. And this has alone occasioned great convulsions, actual civil wars, ending either in dethroning of the Princes, or enslaving of the people. Generally indeed the ruling power carries its point, the revenues of princes constantly increasing, and we see that they are never satisfied, but always in want of more. The more the people are discontented with the oppression of taxes; the greater need the prince has of money to distribute among his partisans and pay the troops that are to suppress all resistance, and enable him to plunder at pleasure. There is scarce a king in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of Pharoah, get first all the peoples money, then all their lands, and then make them and their children servants for ever ..."

Benjamin Franklin, letter to the French Ministry March 1778: "He who shall introduce into public affairs the principle of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world."

Benjamin Franklin: "Taxes on consumption, like those on capital or income, to be just, must be uniform."


Bill McIntire, Spokesman for the National Rifle Association, on Norfolk, Va. council's vote to cancel four gun shows, 1992: "Banning gun shows to reduce violent crime will work about as well as banning auto shows to reduce drunken driving."
"Guns cause crime, like flies cause garbage." --Author unknown.
Bob Emmers, `Orange County Register': "The task of government in this enlightened time does not extend to actually dealing with problems. Solving problems might put bureaucrats out of work. No, the task of government is to make it look as though problems have been solved, while continuing to keep the maximum number of consultants and bureaucrats employed dealing with them."
Boyd Crabtree: "We are ignorant of what we ignore."
Bruce A. Budlong, Dept. of the Treasury (1977): "The same monetary system that was established on April 2, 1792, is in effect today."
Butler D. Shaffer, Southwestern School of Law, Los Angeles: "Let us go back in time to the point at which we began to allow others to operate as authorities over us, and begin to confront the proposition that others have rightful power over our lives, that others have expertise superior to anything we could ever know on our own. Let us respond to such a proposition as any 3-year old would to anything so palpably absurd: "Why?" /P/ When we relearn to ask such questions - and to ask them of anyone who seeks to advance his or her authority over us - we shall have discovered the way to our psychological independence."
Byron C. Radaker, Chairman and C.E.O., Congoleum Corp.: "Our government has found that the most effective way to control a person is not by the the ballot or the bullet, but rather by the 'bucket'. Today, in a country that fought a revolution to rid itself of a repressive government and excessive taxes, government takes 40 percent of everything we earn in the form of taxes."
California citizen attempting to purchase a firearm for self-defense during rioting in Los Angeles, week of 30 April 1992: "What do you mean 'wait fifteen days'? This is America!"
Calvin Coolidge: "Nothing is easier than spending public money. It does not appear to belong to anybody. The temptation is overwhelming to bestow it on somebody."
Charles A. Beard: "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."
Charles Evans Hughes, Justice of the supreme Court (1907): "... the Constitution is what the judges say it is."
Charlie Chaplin, "The Little Dictator": "Dictators free themselves by enslaving others. They work not for your benefit, but their own."
Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice, US supreme Court, 1941: "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."
Chief Justice John Jay, 1st Chief Justice, US supreme Court (Georgia vs. Brailsford, 1794:4): "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."
Chief Justice John Marshall: "The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws and not men."
Chief Justice Joseph Story, US supreme Court (_Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States_, pp 746-747 (1833)): "The right of the citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the Republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and the arbritrary powers of rulers, and will generally -- even if these are successful -- enable the people to resist and triumph over them." {V}{RKBA}
Chief Justice Marlin T. Phelps, Arizona supreme Court: "Nothing was further from the minds of the Framers of the Constitution, than that the supreme Court should ever make the Supreme Law of the Land."
Chief Justice Warren Burger: "Ours is a sick profession. [A profession marked by] incompetence, lack of training, misconduct, and bad manners. Ineptness, bungling, malpractice, and bad ethics can be observed in court houses all over this country every day."
Congressional Record Vol. 90 Sec. 271 (b)(1) p.2243 (1939): "Under this bill we are trying our best to eliminate tax returns for some 30,000,000 of our individual taxpayers by allowing them to use the so-called W-2 form, which results in the taxpayer not computing his own tax but having his tax computed by the collector ... This whole thing is for the purpose of removing complications and difficulties that have arisen by reason of the enactment of the so-called pay-as-you-go system."
Congressman George Hansen: "If a tactic you try irritates the I.R.S. and its agents, you can assume it is legal - remember it for future use."
Congressman Jerry Voorhis: "The banks -- commercial banks and the Federal Reserve -- create all the money of this nation and its people pay interest on every dollar of that newly created money. Which means that private banks exercise unconstitutionally, immorally, and ridiculously the power to tax the people. For every newly created dollar dilutes to some extent the value of every other dollar already in circulation."
Congressman Wright Patman: "Mr. Eccles [Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board], how did you get the money to buy those two billion of government securities?"; Eccles: "We created it." Congressman Patman: "Out of what?"; Eccles: "Out of the right to issue credit money.", The House Banking and Currency Committee; September 30, 1941

Congressman Wright Patman, Chairman, House Banking Committee: "In the United States today we have in effect two governments ... We have the duly constituted Government ... Then we have an independent, uncontrolled and uncoordinated government of the Federal Reserve System, operating the money powers which are reserved to Congress by the Constitution."


Daniel Boorstin `The mysterious Science of the Law': "In the first century of American independence, the [Blackstone] Commentaries were not merely an approach to the study of the law; for most lawyers they constituted all there was of the law."
Daniel Webster, Speech on Hamilton: "He smote the rock of the national resources and abundant streams of revenue gushed forth. He touched the dead corpse of public credit, and it sprang upon its feet."

Daniel Webster: "God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it."

Daniel Webster: "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."


David Veal (Usenet): "For every action there is an equal, and opposite, government program"
Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail [Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888)]: "... if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?"
Donald T. Regan" "We do many things at the federal level that would be considered dishonest and illegal if done in the private sector."
Dorcas R. Hardy, Commissioner of Social Security: "There is no law requiring a person to apply for a Social Security number, and there is no section of title 18, United States Code, making it a crime to not have a social security number."
Douglas MacArthur, General, 1957: "Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear -- kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor -- with the cry of grave national emergency... Always there has been some terrible evil to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant sums demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real."
Edmund Burke (1729-1797): "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Edmund Burke, `Reflections on the Revolution in France': "Kings will be tyrants from policy, when subject are rebels from principle."

Edmund Burke, `Reflections on the Revolution in France': "The age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded."

Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Edmund Burke, 1784: "The people never give up their liberty but under some delusion."
[Contrast the above with U.S. Senator Joseph Biden's statement: "Banning guns is an idea whose time has come" as reported on 18 November, 1993, by the Associated Press.]


Edward Abbey: "The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state controlled police and the military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy... If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government - and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."
Edward Gibbon, `The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire': "... the discretion of the judge is the first engine of tyranny."
Ethan Allen, American Revolutionary Hero. `Reason, The Only Oracle of Man': "There is not any thing, which has contributed so much to delude mankind in religious matters, as mistaken apprehensions concerning supernatural inspiration or revelation; not considering that all true religion originates from reason, and can not otherwise be understood, but by the exercise and improvement of it."
Frank Herbert: "Governments do not know what they cannot do until after they cease to be governments. Each government carries the seeds of its own destruction."

Frank Herbert: "Laws to suppress tend to strengthen what they would prohibit. This is the fine point on which all the legal professions of history have based their job security."

Frank Herbert: "Prisons are needed only to provide the illusion that courts and police are effective. They're a kind of job insurance."


Franklin D. Roosevelt (on Social Security): "We must not allow this type of insurance to become a dole through the mingling of insurance and relief. It is not charity. It must be financed by contributions not taxes ... Let us keep out every element which is actuarily unsound."

Franklin D. Roosevelt: "Governments never do anything by accident; if government does something you can bet it was carefully planned."


Fred Rodell: "In tribal times, there were the medicine men. In the Middle Ages, there were the priests. Today there are the lawyers. For every age, a group of bright boys, learned in their trade and jealous of their learning, who blend technical competence with plain and fancy hocus-pocus to make themselves masters of their fellow men. For every age, a pseudo-intellectual autocracy, guarding the tricks of its trade from the uninitiated, and running, after its own pattern, the civilization of its day." /-P-/ "It is the lawyers who run our civilization for us - our governments, our business, our private lives."
Frederic Bastiat, `The Law': "Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim - when he defends himself - as a criminal."

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the State. They forget that the State lives at the expense of everyone." --Frederic Bastiat

"Often the masses are plundered and do not know it." --Frederic Bastiat

"They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement presupposes that they are naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are fully justified in demanding from the legislators and organizers proof of this natural superiority." --Frederic Bastiat

"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." --Frederic Bastiat

"See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime." --Frederic Bastiat

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authiorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it". --Frederic Bastiat, ECONOMIC SOPHISMS, from chapter titled THE PHYSIOLOGY OF PLUNDER.


Frederick Douglass (1857): "The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
G. K. Chesterton: "'My country right or wrong' is like saying, 'My mother drunk or sober.'"
Gandhi: "You may think your actions are meaningless and that they won't help, but that is no excuse, you must still act."
Gary Larson (Far Side): "My baby's left my lily pad, my legs were both deep-fried. I eat flies all day and when I'm gone, they'll stick me in formaldehyde... Oh, I got the greeeeeens, I got the greens real baaaaaad...."
Gazette of the United States, 14 October 1789: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these states... Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America."
George Bancroft (1845): "... the Union, which was constituted by consent, must be preserved by love."
George Bernard Shaw: "Patriotism is a pernicious, psychopathic form of idiocy."
George Bush, Made to Robert Sherman of American Atheist Press at the Chicago airport, August 27 1988. The exchange appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera on Monday February 27, 1989. It can also be found in "Free Enquiry" magazine, Fall 1988 issue, Volume 8, Number 4, page 16.: "I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
George Stark, General: "LIVE FREE OR DIE; DEATH IS NOT THE WORST OF EVILS."
George Washington and John Adams, Diplomatic message to Malta: "The United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion."

George Washington, Farewell Address: "Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism."

George Washington, Farewell Address: "Occupants of public offices love power and are prone to abuse it."

George Washington, General, Continental Army (Ret.): "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the people's liberty's teeth."

George Washington, speech of 7 January 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, 14 January 1790: "A free people ought... to be armed..."
[Contrast the above with U.S. Representative Major Owens's statement: "My bill ... establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns" as recorded in the Congressional Record of 10 November, 1993.]

George Washington: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

George Washington: "If ever again our nation stumbles upon unfunded paper, it shall surely be like death to our body politic. This country will crash."

George Washington: "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference -- they deserve a place of honor with all that's good ..."

George Washington, in his Farewell Address (17 September, 1796; from Commager's "Documents of American History", p. 174; cited in the February, 1996, Freeman): "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. ... It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it."


Goethe: "Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it."
Grover Cleveland: "At times like the present, when the evils of unsound finance threaten us, the speculator may anticipate a harvest gathered from the misfortune of others, the capitalist may protect himself by hoarding or may even find profit from the fluctuations of values, but the wage earner - the first to be injured by a depreciated currency - is practically defenseless."
H.L. Mencken: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

H.L. Mencken: "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

H.L. Mencken: "The saddest life is that of a political aspirant under democracy. His failure is ignominious and his success is disgraceful."


Harlon Carter: "Those who will not fight for their rights deserve to lose them."

Harlon Carter: "`Compromise' is the art of giving your opponent that which he is not powerful enough to take."


Harold Berman, Harvard law professor: "[The] whole culture seems to be facing the possibility of a kind of nervous breakdown ... One major symptom of this threatened breakdown is the massive loss in the confidence in law - not only on the part of law-consumers but also on the part of lawmakers and distributors."
Henry Clay: "The Constitution of the United States was made not merely for the generation that then existed, but for posterity -- unlimited, undefined, endless, perpetual posterity."
Henry David Thoreau: "I have lived some thirty years on this planet and I have yet to hear the first syllable of valuable or even earnest advice from my seniors."

Henry David Thoreau: "If a thousand men were not to pay their tax-bills this year, that would ... [be] the definition of a peaceable revolution, if any such is possible."

Henry David Thoreau: "In times when the government imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also the prison."


Henry Ford: "Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable reason why so few engage in it."
Henry Kissinger: "It is not a matter of what is true that counts, but a matter of what is perceived to be true."
Henry Spencer: "Life is so much more meaningful if you take the time to hunt down and strangle twits who post blather to inappropriate newsgroups."
Hermann Goering, 1936: "Naturally the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along ... All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Hon. Larry Moritz, Municipal Judge, Spearville Kansas (1981): "If Congress won't keep its part of the Constitutional bargain and coin money of gold and silver like Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 commands, there's no way my court can require anyone to pay fines. I'm not here to protect certain people's investments, I'm here to carry out the mandate of the U.S. and the Kansas Constitutions."
Horace Greeley: "While boasting of our noble deeds, we are careful to conceal the ugly fact that by an iniquitous money system we have nationalized a system of oppression which, though more refined, is not less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery."

Horace Greely: "The way to resume [specie payments] is to resume."


IRS Strategic Plan, (May 1984): "A ``decay in the social contract'' is detectable; there is a growing feeling, particularly among middle-income taxpayers, that they are not getting back, from society and government, their money's worth for taxes paid. The tendency is for taxpayers to try to take more control of their finances ..."
Irwin Schiff: "If you want irresponsible politicians to spend less, you must give them less to spend."
J.F.C. Fuller: "Long before the outbreak of the war their brains had become ossified, and even the terrible circumstances of this battle could not penetrate the historic concrete in which they were encased."
James A. Kidney, `U.S. News & World Report': "Despite growing unease among the public and legal experts, judges ... are reaching into areas once considered the exclusive preserve of legislators, public administrators and the family."
James Earl Jones: "The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will loose."
James Madison, 1788: "As the courts are generally the last in making the decision [on laws], it results to them, by refusing or not refusing to execute a law, to stamp it with its final character. This makes the Judiciary dept paramount in fact to the Legislature, which was never intended, and can never be proper."

James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785: "What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people."

James Madison, Federalist Paper 10: "Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." {V}{FF}

James Madison, Federalist Paper 44: "The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less informed part of the community. They have seen, too, that one legislative interference is but the first link of a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding." {V}{FF}

James Madison, Federalist Paper 46: "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." {V}{FF}{RKBA}

James Madison, Federalist Paper 46: "The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed...."

James Madison, Federalist Paper 46: "The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; ... These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other." {V}{FF}

James Madison, Federalist Paper 62: "It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?" {V}{FF}{LAW}

James Madison, Federalist Paper 62: "To trace the mischievous effects of a mutable government would fill a volume. I will hint a few only, each of which will be perceived to be a source of innumerable others." {V}{FF}

James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, 8 June 1789: "The right of the people to keep and bear... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."

James Madison: "Resistance to tyranny is service to God."


Joel Barlow: "It is because the people are civilized, that they are with safety armed."
John Adams, 1771: "It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."

John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1787-88): "Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense..."
[Contrast the above with Attorney General Janet Reno's statement: "Gun registration is not enough. I've always proposed state licensing... with some federal standards." as reported by the Associated Press and by ABC on 10 December, 1993.]

John Adams, letter to Jefferson: "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."

John Adams, letter to John Taylor: "The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning... And since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? [sic] The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collusion with dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes."

John Adams: "It would be an absurdity for jurors to be required to accept the judge's view of the law, against their own opinion, judgement, and conscience."

John Adams: "We hold that each man is the best judge of his own interest."


John F. Kennedy at Columbia University, (10 days before his assassination): "The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American's freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizen of his plight."
John Hospers: "By far the most numerous and most flagrant violations of personal liberty and individual rights are performed by governments ... The major crimes throughout history, the ones executed on the largest scale, have been committed not by individuals or bands of individuals but by governments, as a deliberate policy of those governments -- that is, by the official representatives of governments, acting in their official capacity."
John Locke, 1632-1704; Second (?) Treatise Concerning Civil Government:

"...every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his. .... The great and chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property."

Government "can never have a Power to take to themselves the whole or any part of the Subjects Property, without their own consent. For this would be in effect to leave them no Property at all." .... Rulers "must not raise Taxes on the Property of the People, without the Consent of the People, given by themselves, or their Deputies."

"'Tis a Mistake to think this Fault [tyranny] is proper only to Monarchies; other Forms of Government are liable to it, as well as that. For where-ever the Power that is put in any hands for the Government of the People, and the Preservation of their Properties, is applied to other ends, and made use of to impovrish, harass, or subdue them to the Arbitrary and Irregular Commands of those that have it: There it presently becomes Tyranny, whether those that thus use it are one or many."

"The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves."

"... whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and Violence. Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall transgress this fundamental Rule of Society, and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People; By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty."

John Locke, "True end of government", late 1600's; chapter 28 "Of Tyranny". 202. Wherever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another's harm; an whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command to compass that upon the subject which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate, and acting without authority may be opposed, as any other man who by force invades the right of another. This is acknowledged in subordinate magistrates. He that hath authority to seize my person in the street may be opposed as a thief and a robber if he endeavours to break into my house to execute a writ, notwithstanding that I know he has such a warrant and such a legal authority as will empower him to arrest me abroad. An why this should not hold in the highest, as well as in the most inferior magistrate, I would galdly be informed....


John Maynard Keynes, `The Economic Consequences of The Peace': "By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose."

John Maynard Keynes, `The Economic Consequences of The Peace': "Economic privation proceeds by easy stages, and so long as men suffer it patiently the outside world cares little. Physical efficiency and resistance to disease slowly diminish, but life proceeds somehow, until the limit of human endurance is reached at last and counsels of despair and madness stir the sufferers from the lethargy which precedes the crisis. Then man shakes himself and the bonds of custom are loosed. The power of ideas is sovereign, and he listens to whatever instruction of hope, illusion, or revenge is carried to him on the air."

John Maynard Keynes, `The Economic Consequences of The Peace': "It is historically true that no order of society ever perishes save by its own hand."

John Maynard Keynes: "If governments should refrain from regulation ... the worthlessness of the money becomes apparent and the fraud upon the public can be concealed no longer."


John Trenchard and Walter Moyle: "It's the misfortune of all Countries, that they sometimes lie under a unhappy necessity to defend themselves by Arms against the ambition of their Governors, and to fight for what's their own. If those in government are heedless of reason, the people must patiently submit to Bondage, or stand upon their own Defence; which if they are enabled to do, they shall never be put upon it, but their Swords may grow rusty in their hands; for that Nation is surest to live in Peace, that is most capable of making War; and a Man that hath a Sword by his side, shall have least occasion to make use of it."
John W. Whitehead, `The Second American Revolution': "In recent years we have witnessed numerous marches on Washington in which one group or another has demanded new "rights." Frequently, such rights have not meant freedom from state control, but rather entitlement to state action, protection, or subsidy. In the process of yielding to the "will of the people" and creating new rights, the state invariably enlarges itself and its bureaucracy. Each new right seems to demand a new agency to guarantee it, administer it, or deliver it."
Josiah Quincy (1774): "Under God we are determined that, wheresoever, whensoever, or howsoever, we shall be called upon to make our exit, we will die freemen."
Judge Carlos Bea: "It is not now, nor was it ever the law, that before submitting to a lawful arrest, a fleeing felon is entitled to a fair fistfight."
Justice Hugo Black, Columbia University's Charpentier Lectures (1968): "The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice. I have no fear of constitutional amendments properly adopted, but I do fear the rewriting of the Constitution by judges under the guise of interpretation."

Justice Hugo Black: "... any broad unlimited power to hold laws unconstitutional because they offend what this Court conceives to be the `conscience of our people' ... was not given by the Framers, but rather has been bestowed on the Court by the Court."


Justice John M. Harlan, US supreme Court, 1895: "We must hold firmly to the doctrine that in the courts of the United States it is the duty of juries in criminal cases to take the law from the court, and apply that law to the facts as they find them to be from the evidence."
Justice Louis Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States, United States supreme Court, 1928: "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent . . . the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."
Justice Miller, US supreme Court, Loan Association vs. Topeka, 20 Wall (87 US) 664 (1874): "To lay with one hand the power of government on the property of a citizen, and with the other to bestow it on favored individuals. . . is none the less robbery because it was done under the forms of law and is called taxation."
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, US supreme Court, Horning vs. District of Columbia, 138 (1920)(or 1902?): "The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact."
Justice Thurgood Marshall, US supreme Court: "The most efficient form of government is a dictatorship."
Justice William O. Douglas: "As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air -- however slight -- lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
Ken Konecki on Usenet, on 27 Jul 1992: "The 2nd amendment was never intended to allow private citizens to 'keep and bear arms'. If it had, there would have been wording such as 'the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'"
Laurence Tribe, Harvard law professor: "... the highest mission of the supreme Court, in my view, is not to conserve judicial credibility, but in the Constitution's own phrase, `to form a more perfect union' between right and rights within that charter's necessarily evolutionary design."
Leo Masters: "I do not feel, based on my studies, that the government has written any mysterious statutes to intentionally fraud or extort anything from the citizens. I do feel that it is a classic case of adopting customs during a period when a lot of legislation was taking place changing the course of life in the United States. The combination of illiteracy between government and citizens just followed these customs. We have transpired into 50 years of chaos and confusion which is only going to get straightened out through a series of effective and well set cases in the courts."
Leroy Pyle on Assault Rifles: "You didn't hear Elliot Ness whining about Al Capone's machine gun."
Lord Henry Brougham, `Present State of the Law': "The whole machinery of the State, all the apparatus of the system, and its varied workings, end in bringing simply twelve good men into the box."
Louis Rukeyser, host of Wall Street Week: "It's anti-American. It's anti-growth. It's anti-success. It's anti-upward mobility. It isn't a tax cut ... it's a scam."
Luke 16:13 : "Ye cannot serve God and mammon."
Lysander Spooner (1808-1887): "That no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted, or reasonably be supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly upon voluntary support."

Lysander Spooner: "... the only security men can have for their political liberty, consists in keeping their money in their own pockets ..."


Mao: "The people are to the guerilla as water is to the fish."
Mark Twain: "A newspaper is not just for reporting the news, it's to get people mad enough to do something about it."

Mark Twain: "If you can't stand solitude, perhaps others find you boring as well."

Mark Twain: "What if you were an idiot, and what if you were a member of Congress? But I repeat myself."


Marshall McLuhan: "If the temperature in the bathtub is raised only one degree every ten minutes, how does the bather know when to start screaming?"
Martin Niemoller: "In Germany they came first ... for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Marvin Cooley: "We must pity the poor wretched, timid soul who is too faint-hearted to resist his oppressors. He sings the song of the dammed: "I can't fight back; I have too much to lose; I own too much property; I have worked too hard to get what I have; They will put me out of business if I resist; I might go to jail; I have my family to think about." Such poor miserable creatures have misplaced values and are hiding their cowardice behind pretended family responsibility - blindly refusing to see that the most glorious legacy that one can bequeath to posterity is liberty; and that the only true security is liberty."
Mason City Globe-Gazette: "An unbiased person is someone who has the same bias as we have."
Mathew Lyon (1746-1822), American Patriot and Congressman: "I cannot say that I am descended from the bastards of Oliver Cromwell, or his courtiers, or from the Puritans who punish their horses for breaking the Sabbath, or from those who persecuted Quakers and burned the witches."
Merrill Jenkins, Inventor (1958), died in 1979: "God forbid, if anyone were to come out with a copper slug with a para-magnetic surface, it would look like silver to my {vending} machine."

"Those unaware are unaware of being unaware."

"We have world government now! Our monetary system would not work if all of the world's bankers were not in collusion."


Michael H. Brown, `Brown's Lawsuit Cookbook': "You've got to know where the machinery is and how it works before you can throw a monkey-wrench into it."
Michael J. Hodge, Asst. Attorney General, State of Michigan: "... U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 10, is binding on the states."
Mike Black, General Manager, WEOS(FM) on FCC content restrictions: "...[W]e are an NPR station but feature modern music, including rap, metal, and alternative rock. We play the balancing act **or try to** between legal and creative programming." ["**" added]
"Estimates are that over 100 billion dollars from legitimate enterprises and 35 billion dollars from illegal business is not being reported on individual tax returns."
--Minutes of IRS Central Region Bar Association Liaision, Nov 2, 1979:
Mohandas Gandhi: "Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good."
Montesquieu: "The deterioration of a government begins almost always by a decay of its principles."
Noah Webster in a pamphlet, "An Examination into the Leading Principals of the Federal Constitution.", aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification [Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56 (New York, 1888)]: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."
Patrick Detches. Letter to `The Register' (17 April 1984): "In 1983 $21 billion was spent in agricultural subsidies - almost equal to the net income of all American farmers."
Patrick Henry [3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836]: "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the _real_ object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

Patrick Henry [3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836]: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitable ruined."

Patrick Henry and George Mason, Elliot, Debates at 185: "...the people have a right to keep and bear arms."

Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia, [taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 (2d ed. Richmond, 1805). Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386]: "The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." SUPPOSEDLY refers to a state militia, organized and officered by the state!


Paul Anderson (?? I think. _Not_ Poul): "If the price I must pay for my freedom is to acknowledge that the government was granted the power to infringe on them, then I am not free."
Paul Strassel, Former IRS Headquarters Agent `Wall St. Journal' 1/28/80: "The real point of audits is to instill fear, not to extract revenue; the IRS aims at winning through intimidation and (thereby) getting maximum voluntary compliance."
Paul Williams, `Das Energi': "Don't ever think you know what's right for the other person. He might start thinking he knows what's right for you."
President Garfield: "Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all commerce and industry."
Prof. Abram Chayes, Harvard law school: "[Judicial action in the last two decades] adds up to a radical transformation of the role and function of the judiciary in American life. Its chief function now is as a catalyst of social change with judges acting as planners of large scale."
Prof. Edward S. Corwin: "[Attorneys have been] prone to identify the judicial version of the Constitution as the authentic Constitution."
Prof. William Forrester, Cornell law school: "The Court has assumed, gradually, the role of deciding the problems on its own and ...the American people and their selected officials gradually have accepted the Court as the political instrument for lawmaking."
R.T. McNamar, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury: "The federal income tax system is deeply flawed."
Randall Hackley, `The Register': "At least 9,000 Orange County residents belong to organizations that believe it's unconstitutional to pay income taxes."
Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, 17 August 1789: "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. ... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
Rep. Steven D. Symms, Idaho: "The income tax is unconstitutional and was not part of the original intent of those who drafted our Constitution or government."
Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session (February 1982): "The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."
Richard E. Byrd, Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates (1910): "A hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed upon every man's business; the eye of the Federal inspector will be in every man's counting house. The law will of necessity have inquisitorial features, it will provide penalties. It will create a complicated machinery. Under it businessmen will be hauled into courts distant from their homes. Heavy fines imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly menace the taxpayer. An army of Federal inspectors, spies and detectives will descend upon the state. They will compel men of business to show their books and disclose the secrets of their affairs. They will dictate forms of bookkeeping. They will require statements and affidavits. On the one hand the inspector can blackmail the taxpayer and on the other, he can profit by selling his secret to his competitor."
Richard Henry Lee (or whoever really wrote the anti-federalist "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican") (1787-1788); Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights. [Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press, 1975)]: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."

Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer 53 (1788) at 169: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms.... To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike... how to use them."


Richard M. Nixon: "I'm a lawyer, and I can't make head or tail out of the current form."
Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager of Federal Reserve Bank, Atlanta, Ga.: "We are completely dependent on the commercial Banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the Banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied soon."
Robert H. Jackson (1953): "There is no such thing as an achieved liberty; like electricity, there can be no substantial storage and it must be generated as it is enjoyed, or the lights go out."
Robert Heinlein, in a 1949 letter concerning "Red Planet": "...I am opposed to all attempts to license or restrict the arming of individuals...I consider such laws a violation of civil liberty, subversive of democratic political institutions, and self-defeating in their purpose."

"Whether the authorities be invaders or merely local tyrants, the effect of such [gun] laws is to place the individual at the mercy of the state, unable to resist." - Robert Heinlein, in a 1949 letter concerning "Red Planet"

"An armed man need not fight."... "Well, in the first place, an armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. For me, politeness is a *sine qua non* of civilization..."
--Heinlein, Robert, "Beyond this Horizon", (c)1942 paperback from Signet page 147:


Ron Paul, House of Representatives, Texas: "Strictly speaking, it probably is not "necessary" for the federal government to tax anyone directly; it could simply print the money it needs. However, that would be too bold a stroke, for it would then be obvious to all what kind of counterfeiting operation the government is running. The present system combining taxation and inflation is akin to watering the milk; too much water and the people catch on."
Ronald Reagan: "It's time we rebelled."

Ronald Reagan: "When I am President, my number one priority will be to get big government off the back of the American people."

Ronald Reagan's Speech at the 1964 National Convention: A Time for Choosing "This idea that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power, is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves."


Rt. Hon. Reginald McKenna, Secretary of the Exchequer, Midland Bank of England (1920): "Those who create and issue money and credit direct the policies of government and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people."
SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz, March, 1933: "All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately ... The SS, SA and Stahlhelm give every respectable German man the opportunity of campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the above named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon ... must be regarded as an enemy of the national government."
Salmon P. Chase (1862): "My agency in promoting the passage of the National Bank Act was the greatest financial mistake of my life. It has built up a monopoly which affects every interest in the country. It should be repealed, but before that can be accomplished, the people will be arrayed on one side and the banks on the other, in a contest such as we have never before seen in this country."
Samuel Adams [Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (1788?) (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)]: "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."
[Contrast the above with U.S. Representative Mel Reynolds' statement: "If it were up to me we'd ban them all" as reported on 9 December, 1993, by CNN.]

Samuel Adams: "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council [counsel?], nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our country men [countrymen?]."


Samuel Chase, signer of the Declaration of Independence, and supreme Court Justice, (1796-1804?): "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
Samuel Cooke (1770): "Fidelity to the public requires that the laws be as plain and explicit as possible, that the less knowing may understand, and not be ensnared by them, while the artful evade their force."

Samuel Cooke (1770): "Mysteries of law and government may be made a cloak of unrighteousness."


Schaeffer & Koop, `Whatever happened to the Human Race?': "[Law] is only what most of the people think at that moment of history, and there is no higher law. It follows, of course, that the law can be changed at any moment to reflect what the majority currently thinks." /-P-/ "More accurately, the law becomes what a few people in some branch of the government think will promote the present sociological and economic good. In reality the will and moral judgement of the majority are now influenced by or even overruled by the opinions of a small group of men and women. This means that vast changes can be made in the whole concept of what should and what should not be done. Values can be altered overnight and at almost unbelievable speed."
Schopenhaur: "Governments make of philosophy a means of serving their state interests, and scholars make a trade of it."
Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D Me) [from a speech to the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) on Friday afternoon Jan 22. CSPAN was running the speech]: "A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT THAT CANNOT BE PRACTICED IS NO RIGHT AT ALL; IT'S AN ILLUSION."
Senator Bill Bradley: "People are fed up."
Senator Carter Glass (1983): "I never thought the Federal Reserve System would prove such a failure. The country is in a state of irretrievable bankruptcy."
Senator Edward M. Kennedy: "The tax system is stacked against the average taxpayer."
Senator Edward V. Long: "The IRS has become morally corrupted by the enormous power which we in Congress have unwisely entrusted to it. Too often it acts like a Gestapo preying upon defenseless citizens."
Senator Frank Church, Chairman, Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with respect to Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate, 94th Congress, First Session, Volume 3, Internal Revenue Service (October 2, 1975): "... If the law does not assure that tax returns files by Americans will not be turned against them, our system of voluntary compliance with the tax laws faces a doubtful future."
Senator Gary Hart: "Let's do away with income taxes."
Dem Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (sponsor) during the floor debate of the Brady Bill, 1993 "I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns."

"No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns."

"I'm not interested in getting a bill that deals with airport security... all I want to do is get at plastic guns."


Senator Hubert Humphrey: "The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote to in America, that historically has proven to be always possible."
Senator Paul Laxault: "The high-handed bureaucratic excesses of the IRS are a national disgrace ... riding roughshod over the taxpayers and making a joke out of our rule of laws."
Senator Sam Ervin: "... judicial verbicide is calculated to convert the Constitution into a worthless scrap of paper and to replace our government of laws with a judicial oligarchy."
Senator William Grayson of Virginia in a letter to Patrick Henry: "Last Monday a string of amendments were presented to the lower house; these altogether respect personal liberty..."
Series 1928 Federal Reserve Note: "Redeemable in gold on demand at the United Stares Treasury or in gold or lawful money at any Federal Reserve Bank."

Series 1934 Federal Reserve Note: "This note is legal tender for all debts public and private and is redeemable in lawful money at the United States Treasury or at any Federal Reserve Bank."

Series 1963 Federal Reserve Note: "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private."


Sir Edward Coke, First Institute: "Reason is the life of the law; nay, the common law itself is nothing else but reason."

Sir Edward Coke, Reports: "They [corporations] cannot commit treason ... for they have no souls."


Socrates: "The unexamined life is not worth living."
Stephen Nestor, IRS: "They just might find that it's easier to drop out of the system than to fight the excessive fines or get social security numbers for their kids."
Sun Tzu: "All warfare is based on deception. A skilled general must be master of the complementary arts of simulation and dissimulation; while creating shapes to confuse and delude the enemy he conceals his true dispositions and ultimate intent. When capable he feigns incapacity; when near he makes it appear that he is far away; when far away; that he is near. Moving as intangibly as a ghost in the starlight, he is obscure, inaudible. His primary target is the mind of the opposing commander; the victorious situation, a product of his creative imagination. Attacking the mind of the enemy is an indispensable preliminary to battle."
Susan B. Anthony, 1871: "I declare to you that woman must not depend upon the protection of man, but must be taught to protect herself, and there I take my stand."
T. Coleman Andrews, Commissioner of the IRS: "Let's get rid of the income tax ... it's legalized confiscation ... too complicated ... destroying the middle class."
T.S. Eliot: "Most of the trouble in the world is caused by people wanting to be important."
Tacitus, 56-120 A.D.: "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." Tacitus: "[The] more corrupt the government, the greater the number of laws."
Tench Coxe in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution.", under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 18 June 1789, (ten days after the introduction of the Bill of Rights) at 2 col. 1: "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their powers to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article [the Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
[Contrast the above with U.S. Representative Charles Schumer's statement: "We're here to tell the NRA {National Rifle Association} their nightmare is True.... We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" as reported on 30 November and 8 December, 1993, by NBC.]

Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, 20 Febraury 1788: "Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."


The Congressional Record (June 12, 1935): "We can't ask for support for a [social security] plan not at least as good as any American could buy from a private insurance company."
Theophilus Parsons, in the Massachusetts Convention on the ratification of the U.S. Constitution [Jonathan Elliot, ed., _The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution_, (New York, Burt Franklin: 1888), 2:94 : "But, sir, the people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, without being driven to an appeal of arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general government, yet only his fellow-citizens can convict him; they are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of Congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation."
Thomas A. Edison: "People who will not turn a shovel full of dirt on the project (muscle Shoals Dam) nor contribute a pound of material, will collect more money from the United States than will the People who supply all the material and do all the work. This is the terrible thing about interest ... But here is the point: If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%. Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution, pays nobody but those who contribute in some useful way. It is absurd to say our Country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency. Both are promises to pay, but one fattens the usurer and the other helps the People. If the currency issued by the People were no good, then the bonds would be no good, either. It is a terrible situation when the Government, to insure the National Wealth, must go in debt and submit to ruinous interest charges at the hands of men who control the fictitious value of gold. Interest is the invention of Satan."
Thomas Jefferson [A quote from Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939]: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

Thomas Jefferson quoted by by Gerard Straub "Salvation for Sale": "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Thomas Jefferson, 1 Jan 1802, address to the Danbury Baptists: "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, but that wall is a one directional wall; it keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government."

Thomas Jefferson, 1789: "The new Constitution has secured these [individual rights] in the Executive and Legislative departments: but not in the Judiciary. It should have established trials by the people themselves, that is to say, by jury."

Thomas Jefferson, 1814: "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own"

Thomas Jefferson, 1820: "You seem...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal."

Thomas Jefferson, 1821: "...the Federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little to-day and a little to-morrow, and advancing it's noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. ...when all government... in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."

Thomas Jefferson, 1821: "The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in...the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow,) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little to-day and a little to-morrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States."

Thomas Jefferson, Quoted by Gerard Straub, in 'Salvation for Sale.': "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Adams, 11 Apr 1823: "The truth is, that the greatest enemies of the doctrine of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them to the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to W. Short, 1820: "[Of Jesus] Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the the most lovely benevolence, and others, again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I separate, therefore, the dross; restore to him the former and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, the roguery of others of his disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p.322: "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

Thomas Jefferson, proposal Virginia Constitution, June 1776, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950): "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

From: chan@shell.portal.com (Jeff Chan) The above "guotation" is really two separate and non-contiguous quotes by Thomas Jefferson that have been incorrectly run together by net people.

I found in the Thomas Jefferson Papers (on microfilm at Stanford):

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms"

This was in Jefferson's own hand, was part of a draft of Virginia's Constitution, and was dated June 1776 (perhaps by the collector of the papers). Another version adds "on his own lands and tenements". In the one I found, the word is "freeman" (as in non-slave) and not "free man". (I guess if you can't own guns, you're a slave....... :-(

The other separate quote also appears to be from TJ's papers, but I have not found the original source myself:

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-- 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).

I can say for certain that it does *not* occur next to the "No freeman" quote in the document I saw.

Thomas Jefferson, in his first inaugural address (as reported in the February, 1996, Freeman): "... a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own persuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."

Thomas Jefferson, in the same inaugural address, exhorted us to pursue what he termed an essential principle of our government: "... peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

Thomas Jefferson: "...judges should be withdrawn from the bench whose erroneous biases are leading us to dissolution. It may, indeed, injure them in fame or fortune; but it saves the Republic..."

Thomas Jefferson: "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." {in a letter to a young relative; Encyclopedia of Thomas Jefferson, 318 (Foley, Ed., reissued 1967)}
[Contrast the above with Joycelyn Elder's statement: "Handguns are a public health issue" as reported on 9 November, 1993, in USA Today.]

Thomas Jefferson: "Above all I hope that the education of the common people will be attended to so they won't forget the basic principles of freedom."

Thomas Jefferson: "As for the right to suicide..if this is a "Christian Nation", then only God theoretically has the right to take a life. It's a touchy issue. I personally believe you have every right to suicide, but only if you succeed. Failures should be punished. Now, is it a Christian nation? I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

Thomas Jefferson: "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies."

Thomas Jefferson: "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."

Thomas Jefferson: "I deny the power of the general government to making paper money, or anything else a legal tender."

Thomas Jefferson: "I place economy among the first and most important virtues and public debt as the greatest dangers to be feared ... We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude ... The same prudence which in private life would forbid our paying money for unexplained projects, forbids it in the disposition of public money. We are endeavoring to reduce the government to the practice of rigid economy to avoid burdening the people ..."

Thomas Jefferson: "If the American people ever allow the banks to control issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied."

Thomas Jefferson: "If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy."

Thomas Jefferson: "The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, ... would make the judiciary a despotic branch."

Thomas Jefferson: "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical."

Thomas Jefferson: "We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

Thomas Jefferson, quoting Beccari's "On Crimes and Punishment (1764): "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."
[Contrast the above with U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum's statement in the 1993 Senate Hearings: "Until we can ban all of them, then we might as well ban none."]


Thomas Paine, in Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894) (in NRA Rifleman: Thoughts on Defensive War, 1775): "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; ... the weak will become the prey to the strong."

Thomas Paine, `The Age of Reason': "Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind."

Thomas Paine: "... The strength and power of despotism consists wholly in the fear of resistance."

Thomas Paine: "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."

Thomas Paine, in "American Crisis", published by the Philadephia Journal on December 19 and read by George Washington to his soldiers on Christmas Day, 1776: "These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country, but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph."

Thomas Paine: "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."

Thomas Paine; Rights of Man, Part II: Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished.

Thomas Paine: "The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. ... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; ... the weak will become a prey to the strong."

Thomas Paine, in Common Sense: "Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness."


Thomas Pownall: "Let therefore every man, that, appealing to his own heart, feels the least spark of virtue or freedom there, think that it is an honor which he owes himself, and a duty which he owes his country, to bear arms."
Tom Anderson: "I wonder why some of the so-called guardians of freedom are so anxious to register guns and so reluctant to register Communists."
Trevor Marshall, `Byte' (May 1988): "It's not ... how you play the game, but how you design the playing field."
Unknown(??): "... the Constitution is an intentionally incomplete, often deliberately indeterminate structure for the participatory evolution of political ideals and governmental practices."

Unknown(??): "Are gun buy-back programs like offering cut rate prostitutes in the hope of reducing rape?"

Unknown(??): "External environmental indicators and internal compliance measures reflect a continuing decline in the extent to which taxpayers are willing or able to voluntarily comply with the federal tax laws ..."

Unknown(??): "When all else fails, read the directions."


W. Somerset Maugham: "If a nation or an individual values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony is that if it is comfort or money it values more, it will lose that too."
Washington Post 1/7/92: "Justice Department studies show that armed citizens are much less likely to suffer losses or personal injury from thieves"
William H. Seward (1850): "There is a higher law than the Constitution."
William Jennings Bryan: "Destiny is not a matter of chance; it is a matter of choice. It is not something to be waited for; but rather something to be achieved."
William Pitt (1783): "Necessity is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves."
Winston Churchill: "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 too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
Woodrow Wilson: "A great industrial Nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world -- no longer a Government of free opinion, no longer a government of conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men."
Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646: "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
`Miracle on Main Street': "Who could have foreseen that between 1923 and 1929, the Federal Reserve would print up a 62 per cent inflation and then suddenly stop, whiplashing the country into the crash of '29, followed by a numbing depression that lasted more than a decade?"
`Orange County Register': "Californians seem to understand that government's major function is to entertain. No matter who is elected, the politicos end up swindling us, wasting our tax money on pork-barrel projects. The only way to reclaim at least some of that lost money is to elect politicians who put on a good show."
`The Pennsylvania Gazette' (Dec. 16, 1789): "Since the federal constitution has removed all danger of our having a paper tender, our trade is advanced fifty percent. Our monied people can trust their cash abroad, and have brought their coin into circulation."
`The Register': "IRS figures indicate that in 1983, 347,000 Californians owed the federal government back taxes totaling $1.2 billion, the highest numbers in the nation."
`The Second American Revolution': "... a 1973 Harris Poll found that only 18 percent of the public had confidence in lawyers, a somewhat lower approval rating than that of garbage collectors."

`The Second American Revolution': "In Massachusetts, the Body of Liberties (1641) permitted anyone who could not plead his own cause to retain someone else for assistance "provided he give him noe fee or reward for his paines". `The Second American Revolution': "Law has become utilitarian. It can be what the majority conceives as law, or it can be what an elite says it is. There is no absolute. In the end, it is always what a court or judge says it is."


`The Spotlight': "According to Roscoe Egger, commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, some 35 million Americans have not yet filed their federal income tax returns for 1983. Egger describes citizen response to the current tax scheme as ``the taxpayer's revenge against an unfair system.''"
`The Wall Street Journal', (24 Sep 1971): "A pro-International Monetary Fund Seminar of eminent economists couldn't agree on what 'money' is or how banks create it."
`Who's Afraid of the I.R.S.?': "IRS employees are outnumbered by us at a rate of approximately 1,000 to 1"
If Big Brother comes to America, he will not be a fearsome, foreboding figure with a heart-chilling, omnipresent glare as in _1984_. He will come with a smile on his face, a quip on his lips, a wave to the crowd, and a press that
(a) dutifully reports the suppressive measures he is taking to save the nation from internal chaos and foreign threat; and
(b) gingerly questions whether he will be able to succeed.
--Michael Parenti, "Inventing Reality" (1986)

nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley): "I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's."
van Gogt: "The right to buy weapons is the right to be free."
Robin vs. Hardaway: "All acts of the legislature apparently contrary to natural rights and justice are, in our law and must be in the nature of things, considered void ... We are in conscience bound to disobey."
State vs. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 65 NW 262, 30 L.R.A. 630 Am. St. 459: "When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it." (See 16 Ma. Jur. 2d 177, 178)
>Can anyone come up with a specific quote by some spokesperson of the >gun control lobby that admits to the strategy of gradually imposing a >lot of "little" restrictions, while pursuing the eventual goal of >banning guns outright?

"This is the first step"
--U.S. Representative Edward Feighan, referring to the Brady Bill (which he introduced) at recent House hearings.


"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest... So we'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time... The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition -- except for military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal."
--Pet Shields, Chairman Emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc. (interview appearing in The New Yorker, July 26, 1976)
"This is not all we will have in future Congresses, but this is a crack in the door. There are too many handguns in the hands of citizens. The right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with the Brady Bill."
--U.S. Representative Craig Washington, at the mark-up hearing on the Brady Bill, April 10, 1991.
"Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed."
--Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy (interview appeared in the Washington Evening Star on September 19, 1969).
"It is our aim to ban the manufacture and sale of handguns to private individuals. . .the coalition's emphasis is to keep handguns out of private possession -- where they do the most harm."
--Recruiting flyer currently distributed by The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, formerly called The National Coalition to Ban Handguns.

"Yes, I'm for an outright ban (on handguns)."
--Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a "60 Minutes" interview.

"We are at the point in time and terror where nothing short of a strong uniform policy of domestic disarmament will alleviate the danger which is crystal clear and perilously present. Let us take the guns away from the people. Exemptions should be limited to the military, the police, and those licensed for good and sufficient reasons. And I would look forward to the day when it would not be necessary for the policeman to carry a sidearm."
--Patrick V. Murphy, former New York City Police Commissioner, and now a member of Handgun Control's National Committee, during testimony to the National Association of Citizens Crime Commissions.


"My experience as a street cop suggests that most merchants should not have guns. But I feel even stronger about the average person having them...most homeowners...simply have no need to own guns."
--Joseph McNamara, HCI spokesman, and former Chief of Police of San Jose, California.
"I don't want to go for confiscation, but that is where we are going."
--Daryl Gates, Police Chief of Los Angeles, California.
"There may be other things that will happen later... It may not be the end... the bottom line is what we are seeking now is the Brady Bill."
--U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, interviewed on CNN Crossfire.
"The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take...we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases."
--U.S. Representative William Clay, quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6, 1991.
"It's only the first step, it's not going to be enough...we've got to go beyond that, and I hope we'll do it this session of Congress."
--U.S. Representative Edward Feighan during an interview on ABC News Nightline.
From: etg002@email.mot.com (Tim Grothause) Date: 21 Oct 93 15:24:24 GMT Newsgroups: info.firearms.politics

I support car ownership although cars can be used to drive drunk.
I support pharmaceutical manufacture although drugs can be abused.
I support swimming pool ownership although kids can drown in them.
I support steak-knife ownership although they can be used in stabbings.
I support free speech although people say things I don't like to hear.
I support freedom of religion although cults do the damnedest things.
I support parenthood although parents can abuse their children.
I support pregnancy although abortion couldn't happen without it.
I support penis ownership although they are used in rapes.
I support gun ownership although guns can be used in crime.
I support open elections although a moron became President.


"A gun in the hands of a free man frightens and angers the autocrat, not because he fears the power of the gun, but, rather, the spirit of the man who holds it."
""Strict gun laws are about as effective as strict drug laws...It pains me to say this, but the NRA seems to be right: The cities and states that have the toughest gun laws have the most murder and mayhem."-Mike Royko, Chicago Tribune
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..." - President Clinton (USA TODAY, 11 March 1993, page 2A)
Don't think of it as `gun control', think of it as `victim disarmament'. If we make enough laws, we can all be criminals.
In 1966, 3,000 civilian women received defensive handgun training from Orlando, Florida police. in 1967, rape dropped 88.2% and aggravated assault and burglary 25%. While rape gradually increased again after the year-long program ended, five years later the rate was still 13% below the pre-program level; during that same period rape had increased 64% nationally, 96.1% in Florida and over 300% in the immediate area around Orlando.
G. Kleck, "Policy Lessons from Recent Gun Control Research," _Law and Contemporary Problems_ 49 (No. 1, 1986).

According to the National Crime Survey administered by the Bureau of the Census and the National Institute of Justice, it was found that only 12 percent of those who use a gun to resist assault are injured, as are 17 percent of those who use a gun to resist robbery. These percentages are 27 and 25 percent, respectively, if they passively comply with the felon's demands. Three times as many (36-51% ??? ) were injured if they used other means of resistance.

"Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force" by Gary Kleck, Florida State University Social Problems (the journal's name) Volume 35, No 1, February 1988


Kates, Don B. "Defensive Gun Ownership as a Response to Crime." __Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A Realistic Assessment of Gun Control__. 1990: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, pp. 17-36)

Also see: Cook, "The Relationship between Victim Resistance and Injury in Noncommercial Robbery." __Journal of Legal Studies__ 15(1986): 405-6. (talks about gratuitous executions of unarmed, non-resisting victims.)


In 1976, there were approximately 140 million guns of all types in private hands. Between 1968 and 1976, 40 million new guns were made and sold.

Source: Bruce-Briggs, B. "The Great American Gun War." __The Public Interest 45 (Fall 1976):37-62.


About 250 million guns were made and sold in the US in this century. At least 150 million remain in working order in private hands. Around 50% of households own at least one gun; the average number owned is three.

Source: Wright, James D. "Second Thoughts about Gun Control." __The Public Interest__ 91 (Spring 1988): 23-39.


HCI claims one child per day killed by handgun accidents; the figure from the National Safety Council is an average of 256 per year for *all* ages, 10-15/year for kids under age 5, and 50-55 per year for kids under age 15. For comparison, 381 kids under five drowned in pools in 1980, while 13 were killed by handgun accidents. 432 were killed by fires caused by adults falling asleep while smoking. Car accidents take 190 times as many lives as handgun accidents.

Source: Kates, "Gun Accidents." __Guns, Murders, and the Coinstitution__ 1990: Pacific Research Institute, pp. 50-52.

HCI cooks the books by picking a particularly violent year and taking anyone under 25 to be a "child", thus approaching 365 per year. It still falls short, though.


To know what our founding fathers really intended, one must read more than just the Second Amendment. The following quotes should be interesting and educational.

The second amendment states: "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."

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison)

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." (George Mason)

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. ... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment)

"...to disarm the people-that was the best and most effective way to enslave them." (George Mason)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification)[2]

"if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail)[3]

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formitable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. ... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henery Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)[5]

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the _real_ object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry)[8]

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton)

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams)[4]

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson)[6]

"...the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" (from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette ten days after the introduction of the Bill of Rights)[7]

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry)[8]

[1] Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 (2d ed. Richmond, 1805).

[2] Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principals of the Federal Constitution...", in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888).

[3] Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888).

[4] Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

[5] Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124(Univ. of Alabama Press,1975).

[6] A quote from Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939

[7] Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2

[8] 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836


Guns, Murders, and the Constitution A Realistic Assessment of Gun Control by Don B. Kates, Jr.

In this study, Don B. Kates, attorney and criminologist, points out fallacies behind current gun control proposals; critiques academic research on gun use, murder, and violence (research upon which most of the anti-gun lobby mistakenly relies); and reveals aspects of the issue that have not received full attention from either opponents or proponents of gun control, including the overlooked implications of gun control on the issue of women and self-defense.

* Kates cites a survey by the National Institute of Justice that shows, "most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." While handguns are used in vast numbers of crimes annually, they are used more often by good citizens to repel crime (approximately 581,000 crimes vs. about 645,000 defense uses annually). This finding is even more startling because Kates relied on an exhaustive review of anti-gun sponsored studies to compile the gun use figures.

* Kates also examines national studies, many of them again sponsored by the anti-gun lobby, to test the claim that most murders are "acquaintance murders," committed by normally law abiding citizens who murder because of the accessibility of a gun in a moment of anger. He finds instead that murderers are highly disturbed "aberrant individuals, characterized by felony records, alcohol and/or drug dependence, and life histories of irrational violence against people around them." These studies reveal that 74.4 percent of arrested murderers nationally had prior arrests for violent felony or burglary and, on average an adult record of a six year criminal career with four major felony arrests.

* The study has important implications for those concerned with issue of women and self-defense, women and rape, and the "battered-wife" syndrome. It is not uncommon in most academic research on gun use by women, in cases of attack and rape, to find the totally insupportable view that "women would invariably be too suprised by violent attack to use a handgun in self-defense." Kates points out, on the contrary, that in most instances, the man who beats or murders a woman (often even the rapist) is an acquaintance who has previously assaulted her on one or more occasions. She is, therefore, prepared and uniquely qualified to anticipate a violent attack based on her own experience of previous confrontations.

In cases of criminal violence between spouses, 91 percent of the victims were women. Kates cites studies affirming that in the overwhelming majority of cases where wife kills husband, she is defending herself or the children. In Detroit, for instance, husbands are killed by wives more often than vice versa, yet men are far more often convicted for killing a spouse -- because three-quarters of wives who killed were not even charged, prosecutors having found their acts lawful and necessary to preserve their lives or their children's. Eliminating handguns, says Kates, would almost guarantee that the sex of the victims of inter-spousal homicide would be female.

Other major findings of Kates' study include:

* Differentials in international crime rates are a function of socio-cultural and economic factors, not the percentage of gun ownership. In fact, there is an _inverse_ correlation between violence rates and the percentage of gun ownership in many foreign countries, the most noteworthy being Switzerland and Israel.

* A handgun ban is not realistically enforceable. Confiscating guns would require house-to-house searches and alienate the very individuals whose compliance is essential to the success of any regulation. If gun ownership were prohibited, organized crime would step in to provide the firearms that will continue to be procured with criminal intent.

* With respect to police protection as an alternative for gun ownership, "the police do _not_ exist to protect the individual citizen. Rather their function is _to deter crime in general_ by patrol activities and by apprehension after the crime has occurred." Response to crisis calls in many urban police departments is slow due to staff limitations and sheer volume of emergency demands. Given that the individual, and not the police, must be responsible for the individual's safety, "the issue is whether those individuals should be free to choose gun ownership as a means of protecting themselves, their homes, and their families."

* Controls over handguns but not _rifles and shotguns_ may result in the "counterproductive" substitution of these weapons in accident and assault situations where long weapons are far more problematic. The fact is, says Kates, "for a host of technical reasons, long guns are both far more susceptible to accidental discharge than handguns and are far more deadly when so discharged -- particularly for small children."

To order a copy of this new study at $5.00/copy, please call (415) 989-0833, fax (415) 989-2411, or write to 177 Post Street, Suite 500, San Francisco, CA, 94108.


Who is responsible for your safety?

Many people feel that the purpose of the police is to protect them. This is true, however the police forces of this country are unable to protect you directly, and are not responsible for doing so, in any event.

The purpose of the police force is to provide indirect deterrence to crime, through patrolling the streets, and by apprehending the criminal after the criminal act has occurred.

It would be impossible for the police to protect you, the individual, at all times. There are approximately 550,000 peace officers in this country. They work three shifts a day, so their number must be divided by three in order to determine how many are available to patrol the streets. This number must be halved again to account for the percentage of the force dedicated to support roles (paperwork, booking, lab work, training, etc.) This leaves less than 100,000 officers to patrol the streets at any given time. These officers are facing ~10,000,000 criminals, that is to say, they are outnumbered 100 to 1... [figures from Prof. John Bowman, U. of Illinois]

Recognizing the logistical impossibility of providing around-the-clock, full coverage, our legal system has consistently held that the police have no legal duty to you, the individual.

In California, the California Government Code (sections 821,845,846) reads: "A public employee is not liable for an injury caused by his ... failure to enforce any enactment [law]. ... Neither a public entity not a public employee is liable for failure to ... provide police protection ... or to provide sufficient police protection ... [or] for injury caused by the failure to make an arrest or the failure to attain an arrested person in custody."

In Illinois, the Illinois Rev. Statutes (4-102) state the matter more clearly: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes, and failure to apprehend criminals."

In the case of "Riss vs. City of New York (1961)", the Supreme Court held that even though Ms. Riss had asked the police for help six times previously, warning them of threats made against her by a rejected suitor, the police could not be held liable for their failure to prevent him from throwing acid in her face, disfiguring her for life.

In the case of "Warren vs. District of Columbia (1981)", 2 women were upstairs in their house, and heard their other roommate being attacked downstairs by rapists. They called the police, and, when 1/2 hour later the noise downstairs had stopped for some time (because their roommate had been beaten into unconsciousness), went downstairs to meet the police.

In the words of the Court, "for the next fourteen hours, the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon one another, and made to submit to the sexual demands" of their attackers. Their calls were mishandled by the dispatcher. The police never came to their aid...

The Court held that the "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen" absolved the police and the city government from any liability in the case.

So think about this, as you are debating whether people should be able to keep weapons for self-defense or not - if you truly believe the police will protect you when you need it, you are potentially fatally mistaken.

In the final analysis, you MUST be responsible for the safety of your family and yourself - no one else is.


More statistics (from A.M. Gottlieb's _Gun_Rights_Fact_Book_, p.59,60,61):

...According to the _Statistical_Abstract_of_the_United_States_, 1987 edition, there were only 1,695 firearms accidents that led to deaths in 1983...Over 99.9% of all households with a handgun did not experience a fatal firearms accident during the year...during 1983,...there were also over 44,000 deaths caused by car accidents; over 12,000 deaths caused by accidental falls; over 5,000 deaths caused by fires;...over 4,500 deaths due to accidental poisonings ...5,254 deaths from drowning...The rate of accidental gun deaths has also been decreasing. In 1970, it was 1.2 per 100,000; in 1983, it was .7 per 100,000... remember that about 40% of firearms accidents are hunting accidents. This means that the already-low accidental gun death rate is reduced even further when one considers just gun accidents in the home.

In 1985, the accidental gun death rate in the house was only .3 per 100,000 people--meaning that there was a total of 800 fatalities....


CRIMINALS DON'T WAIT; Why Should You?

In much of the propaganda in support of a national "waiting period," it is alleged that, if such a waiting period/background check been in place, "John Hinckley would have been caught", because "he lied on a federal form" when he purchased the revolver used in his attack on President Reagan.

It is further claimed that Hinckley "would have been in jail, instead of on his way to Washington, D.C." had such a background check been conducted.

These allegations are irrefutably false.

John Hinckley purchased a total of eight firearms -- two .38 cal. and four .22 cal. revolvers, as well as two rifles -- from August 1979 to January 1981. The .22 cal. revolver used in his assault on President Reagan was one of the two he purchased in October 1980, more than six months before he left for Washington, D.C. Federal law was diligently complied with by the firearms dealer who filed multiple purchase forms with the regional office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) after the purchase.

That purchase, and all previous purchases, were legal. And they would have been legal under any "waiting period" scheme ever devised.

At the time of his purchase, and all previous purchases, up until his attack on the President, John Hinckley had no felony record, he had no recorded history of mental illness or commitment (no check involves police inspection of private conversations with a psychiatrist), and he was using a valid Texas driver's license issued May 23, 1979, to make his firearms purchases.

The contention that a background check would have "uncovered" the fact that he did not physically reside at the address listed on his drives license is a willful distortion of the criminal record check made by local police. To the contrary, had a check been run and all criminal records been thorough and completely available, they would have confirmed that he was not a prohibited person and that his last known address was Lubbock, Texas, and he was listed in the telephone directory.

Simply put, no detection system ever proposed or ever devised has mindreading capabilities. Advocates of the background check do a gross disservice to the nation by distorting the truth. No regulatory "gun control" scheme would have prevented Hinckley in his determination to carry out the tragic assassination attempt on President Reagan.

The Hinckley situation turns out to be typical in publicized shootings. Laurie Dann, who shot several school children in Illinois, despite an extensive record of psychiatric problems and police investigations, had never been committed to an institution nor prosecuted for a felony. Her handgun purchases had been approved following an Illinois background check for a permit to own and a waiting period before each handgun acquisition. And Patrick Purdy, the mass murderer in the Stockton schoolyard, had been able to purchase handguns lawfully in California despite a 15-day day waiting period and background check because his numerous felony arrests had all been reduced to misdemeanor plea-barginings. The leniency of the criminal justice system allowed him to be on the streets following a 45 jail sentence for misusing a gun and resisting arrest, despite a probation report noting that he posed a danger to himself and others.


PROMISES DOOMED TO FAIL

Waiting periods fail to reduce crime; yet that failure is used as an excuse to impose more restrictive laws. For example, beginning with two days in 1940, moving to three days in 1958, and to five days in 1965, California's waiting period was raised to 15 days in 1976, a longer minimum time than any other state. But this gradual increase in the waiting period has not reduced crime. Between 1965 and 1987, the rate of violent crime per 100,000 persons rose 235%.

Yet the failure of the current law was used in 1982 as an argument for passage of the ill-conceived and ill-fated Proposition 15 -- the handgun "freeze" and registration initiative. California voters saw through this deception and soundly defeated this Proposition by nearly a 2 to 1 margin.

Similarly, and ironically, while anti-gunners nationally were citing Maryland's waiting period as being effective in preventing numerous sales (the vast majority of appeals of denials were granted, indicating that the system was considerably more effective at disarming the law-abiding than at disarming criminals), Maryland "gun control" advocates insisted that the waiting period wasn't keeping criminals from getting handguns and that a ban on the manufacture and sale of "certain handguns" was needed.

While insulting good and honest citizens, the waiting period scheme will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals, nor will it prevent "crimes of passion". Indeed, according to prominent anti-gun scholars, Philip J. Cook and James Blose of Duke University, "ineligible people are less likely to submit to this screening process than are eligible people ... because these people find ways of circumventing the system entirely ..." (The Annals, May 1981)

That criminals do not obtain their firearms through retail channels was also confirmed by a survey of felons conducted by Profs. James Wright and Peter Rossi of the University of Massachusetts, who concluded that retail sales play a minor and unimportant role as direct sources of criminals handguns.

Inaccurate and out-of-date records make citizens more apt than criminals to be denied permits. A recent study by the Office of Technology Assessment, an arm of Congress, found that almost half of a sample of criminal history records that the FBI sent to the police, state agencies, banks and other such institutions throughout the United States, were incomplete or inaccurate. Such inaccuracies could well lead to the denial of licenses to thousands of reputable citizens under a federal registration and licensing system.

Ironically, a Chicago newspaper in 1983 submitted six Illinois licensing applications forms to the state in the names of such characters as bank robber John Dillenger and Cuban revolutionary Che Guevara. Although Illinois has computerized registers which are checked in the course of handgun licensing investigations, all the applications were approved except for Vito "the Godfather" Corleone whose bogus form included a photograph of actor Marlon Brando in his film role.

A waiting period scheme redirects police from crime fighting to the unrewarding task of snooping into the private lives of law-abiding citizens buying guns through licensed firearms dealers. Such "crime control" schemes merely make our streets -- and homes -- safer for criminals plying their nefarious trades. A November, 1982 "U.S. News & World Report" cover story on crime included an article on the police, subtitled: "It's no wonder the forces in blue don't catch more crooks. Their budgets continue to get tighter and society keeps giving them extra chores." The article went on to note that only 45 officers are actually on patrol in the streets out of every 100 on duty at a given time. And the article pointed out that other studies have shown that police spend only about 15% of their time dealing with violent crime. A waiting period/background check is a perfect example of such diversion of police activity.

Yet, waiting periods have been soft-peddled as fair and reasonable, preventive, moderate and acceptable to sportsmen. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a proposal to be taken seriously. What do these words actually mean?


FAIR AND REASONABLE?

Purely and simply, waiting periods begin the step by step process where the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms becomes a privilege. [Granted the wealthy and influential.]

Under the waiting period licensing procedures, prospective gun owners are presumed to be guilty of crime until a police check into their background proves their innocence. Such a presumption is repellent to Anglo-American jurisprudence.

Background checks invite serious violations of the right to privacy. Indeed, since most persons who seek psychiatric assistance are not legally institutionalized, a thorough background check would require the opening of hitherto private medical records to the police. And the leading proponents would even extend curbs to those with records of arrest followed by acquittal, for minor traffic violations, or even using a gun in self-defense.

Ironically, at the same time when there is already uncertainty about the propriety of the FBI keeping computerized records in the National Crime Information Center on anyone who might possibly be a criminal, the waiting period would set into motion a system of records on law-abiding citizens who comply with the waiting period law. Such record keeping amounts to "de facto" registration, awaiting only a central computer processing capability for complete gun registration. In Virginia cities, California, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, authorities are using waiting periods to establish such a system.

Waiting period schemes impose additional undue burdens on the law-abiding citizen: they force the applicant to take time off from his job, make repeated trips to a licensed firearms dealer to legally purchase a firearm, and to pay for the inconvenience since the additional paper work costs to the dealers are passed along to the consumer.

And a waiting period/background check costs the citizens of the state tremendous amounts of money for useless bureaucratic paper work and investigation. A study by Cook and Blose (The Annuls, May 1981) found that the FBI's regulations require any background investigation request be accompanied by a set of finger prints and that the state criminal records bureau conduct a check prior to the ID Divisions search. And the current turnaround time for FBI searches is 22 working days. Based on these features, they determined that a FBI check is to costly and time consuming.

In addition, waiting periods encourage obstruction by the issuing authority. In jurisdictions with waiting periods on the books, there are countless cases of "lost" applications, petty harassments requiring repeated trips to different offices for completion of paperwork, fingerprinting and bureaucratic red tape designed to discourage gun ownership.

In New Jersey, a frequently cited state by anti-gunners, for one year police refused to issue any permits because the FBI was refusing to do fingerprint checks on civil matters. Authorities there regularly take 90 days -- and occasionally much longer -- to process an application, even though the statute requires it be done within 30 days. Moreover, thousands of applications have been rejected simply because the police didn't want a citizen to have a handgun, even though there was no criminal or mental record to justify rejection under the law. This is similar to Broward County, Florida, where a large percentage of rejected applications were based on traffic citations rather than valid bases for denials.

Such discretionary power by police is opposed by the American people because it is abhorrent in a society built on freedom. In a nationwide survey by Decision Making Information, Inc., in 1978 the question was asked: "Would you favor or oppose a law giving the police the power to decide who may own a firearm?" By a margin of more than 2-1 the public was found to be against the power police inevitably acquire through waiting period/licensing legislation. The U.S. Senate reflected the will of the people in 1985, rejecting a waiting period by a 3-1 margin.


A CRIME PREVENTION TOOL?

Almost half the states -- including 64 percent of the population -- require background checks/waiting periods on all handgun transfers. But, according to Cook and Blose, "there has been no convincing empirical demonstration that a police check on handgun buyers reduces violent crime rates." (The Annuals, May, 1981) Indeed, a comparison of states with added or extended waiting periods from 1965 to 1987 reveals the ineffectiveness of such "crime control" experiments. (See Table B)

Based on the 1987 FBI Uniform Crime Reports, there would appear to be an inverse relationship between gun availability and violent crime. Data from the state with the greatest number of local jurisdictions with waiting periods and/or licensing requirements -- Virginia -- make clear waiting periods and/or licensing have no impact, even allowing for the urban nature of most regulatory jurisdictions. (Table C)

                          TABLE B
                                       1965    1987    % change
                                       ----     ----    -------
     United States                      5.1     8.3     + 62.7
     California (from 2 to 15 days)     4.7    10.6     +125.5
     Connecticut (from 1 to 14 days)    1.6     4.9     +206.0
     Washington (from 2 to 3 days)      2.2     5.6     +154.5
     Wisconsin (from 0 to 2 days)       1.5     3.5     +133.3
    *Rhode Island (3 days)              2.1     3.5     + 66.6
    *New York (from unlimited
                   to 6 months)         4.6    11.3     +145.6
   * New/Additional States

   Homicide rate comparisons for the United States as a whole per
   100,000 persons and states with waiting periods for the years
   1965 to 1987 are revealing. (Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports)
-------------------------------------------------------------------

                          TABLE C

                          Violent                     Aggravated
                           Crime    Homicide  Robbery   Assault
------------------------  -------   --------  ------- ----------
Virginia as a  whole       268.9      7.4      105.7     155.7

MSA (Metropolitan
     Statistical Areas)    322.2      8.0      140.6     173.5

MSA (Cities with waiting
     periods or permits)   472.2     12.9      216.7     242.5

MSA (Cities without
     waiting periods
     or police permits)    369.8      8.8      161.3     199.7

The 1987 violent crime rate per 100,000 persons for Virginia, the state's Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA), and Virginia cities with local waiting periods and/or police permits, illustrates the higher rates in the latter. (Sources : FBI Uniform Crime Reports 1987; BATF State Laws and Published Ordinances, 1986-1987).


Willis Booth, a former chief with 40 years of law enforcement experience and a lobbyist for the Florida Police Chiefs Association, succinctly expressed Florida law enforcement's assessment of waiting periods and background checks: "I think any working policeman will tell you that the crooks already have guns. If a criminal fills out an application...he's the biggest, dumbest, crook I've ever seen." In 1987, the Florida State Legislature subsequently repealed all background check ordinances in the state.

Indeed, a study of waiting periods by professors Joseph P. Magaddino and Marshall H. Medoff of California State University at Long Beach found them to be totally useless in curbing crime.

Their finding reconfirmed the results of multiple regression analyses by Matthew DeZee of Florida State University, who favors restrictive gun laws, and by Douglas Murray of the University of Wisconsin. They found that waiting periods, either alone or in combination with other gun laws, were not effective in reducing violent crime or gun related criminal violence.

Even anti-gunners generally fail to claim "crime control" effects for waiting periods, instead citing statistics on the number of lawful handgun transfers denied by state authorities. They fail to cite drops in crime, or to pretend those denied lawful access to handguns do not acquire handguns by other means, or use other weapons to commit crimes. And, despite allegations that those denied are criminals "caught" by a background check, only a fraction of a percent of the time are such denials accompanied by so much as a recommendation for prosecution. By claiming that denials show that the law is working, the other side would, logically, think a denial of 100% of applications was 100% "effective" -- but not at stopping crime.


PREVENTS CRIMES OF PASSION?

Proponents contend "waiting periods" will sharply reduce the number of handgun murders committed annually. This information is based on misconstrued and outdated FBI data showing 70 percent of all murders involve people who know each other -- relatives, friends, acquaintances, or neighbors.

These FBI categories are misleading: Acquaintances can be, as Harvard Professor Mark Moore has said, "old but familiar enemies," "neighbors" is defined on the basis of where people live, not whether the are friends, enemies or strangers; and predatory felonies are often committed in criminals' neighborhood. The area is familiar; escape is easy; the criminal doesn't stand out as he might in a socially or racially different environment; and he can count on fear of retaliation to limit cooperation of victims or witnesses with the police. It was noted, for example, that 80% of Washington D.C.'s murders involved acquaintances -- _and_ the crimes _all_ involved drug trafficking.

It must be emphasized that murder, including "domestic" and "acquaintance" murder, is for the most part not committed by decent, law-abiding citizens catalyzed into "murders" by the presence of firearms.

Indeed, FBI Uniform Crime Reports detailing the characteristics of murders (until 1975), studies by the Chicago police, the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, and the annual Homicide Analysis by the New York City Police, show that 70 - 80 percent of suspected murders have criminal careers of long standing. There have been an average of six arrests per suspect, half of them for violent crimes. Victims have similar records about 50 percent of the time.

Waiting periods are further based on the false assumption that newly purchased firearms are used in murders and other violent crimes. Yet the Police Foundation's "Firearm Abuse" (1977) found that only 2.1 percent of handguns traced to all crime were less than a month old. And a month is twice as long as any state's waiting period.

In fact, an analysis by James D. Wright of the University of Massachusetts -More- suggests that 70 to 80 percent of gun purchasers already own firearms. In the unlikely event that these individuals would chose to commit a violent crime, a "waiting period" would be irrelevant.

In addition, the most frequent time for argument-precipitated murders is during the time from 10 p.m. to 3 a.m. time frame, when gun shops are closed. And studies by the FBI and New York City Police Department (NYPD) indicate that about 50 percent of murderers are under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs at the time of the murder -- conditions under which the sale of firearms is already prohibited by law.

Waiting periods assume that violent people, deprived of ready access to a handgun will not kill. Yet Dr. Marvin Wolfgang, the noted criminologist who studied homicide in Philadelphia and published "Patterns in Criminal Homicide", found that the nature of homicide had little to do with the presence or absence of firearms. He noted: "It is the contention of this observer that few homicides due to shootings would be avoided merely if a firearm were not immediately present, and that the offender would select some other weapon the achieve the same destructive goal. Probably only in those cases where a felon kills a police officer, or vise versa, would homicide be avoided in the absence of a firearm."

Crimes of "passion" bring into play the plethora of curious objects used to commit murder, from brooms to ceramic lamps, and especially knives, according to a list of murder weapons used in San Francisco and New York between 1973 and 1983.

The waiting period supposes that the crime of passion is some sudden impulse which will pass. But a Nation Institute of Justice (NIJ) study reveals that the victims of family violence often suffer repeated problems from the same person for months or even years, and if not successfully resolved, such incidents can eventually result in serious injury or death. Indeed, a study conducted in Kansas City indicates that in 90 percent of spouse slaying, there had been at least one prior police call regarding wife beating and in 50 percent of such murders police had been called at least 5 times. Of course, part of the problem is that arrests are seldom made on such calls, although recent research shows that arrests, coupled with support for the victim, may reduce repeated beatings.

The tragic murder of John Lennon, and the assassination attempt on President Reagan renewed the cry for stricter "waiting periods". Ironically, Lennon's murder purchased his gun in Hawaii, a state requiring permits to purchase, registration and banning the so-called "Saturday Night Special," almost six weeks before committing the crime. And President Reagan's's assailant John Hinckley could have legally purchased firearms under a "waiting period scheme."


ACCEPTABLE TO SPORTSMEN?

Already, strict gun laws are placed on the nation's 60 million law-obedient firearms owners under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA '68), which requires licensing of manufactures, importers, and dealers; prohibits almost all interstate transfers of handguns and requires interstate transfers of rifles and shotguns to be through licensed dealers and in compliance with the laws of the states where the dealers operates and where the buyer resides, and even prohibits relatives from giving firearms to family members living in different states; prohibits the sale of arms or ammunition by a dealer or anyone else to, or the acquisition or transportation by, felons, persons under felony indictment, fugitives, drug addicts, mental incompetents, illegal aliens, dishonorably discharged veterans, those who have renounced their U.S. citizenship, and employees of all such persons; requires licensees to keep records available for BATF inspection; prohibits receipt or possession of guns by convicts, dishonorably discharged veterans, illegal aliens, the insane, persons who have renounced their citizenship; and prohibits the importation of many firearms and parts from abroad.

Yet, these laws have failed to reduce crime, which is much higher than when the GCA '68 took effect. The solution, according to gun control fanatics, is to impose even more restrictive laws on the law-abiding.

A current proposal would have the federal government ask local authorities to run background checks in seven days with all the costs to be borne by local departments with the added risk of federal prosecution if the local police retained the application in their files, and with no standards for approval or denial, and no provision for appeal.

In addition, Handgun Control Inc., has promised to sue any municipality if police fail to prevent a transfer because they did not conduct a through enough background investigation and the handgun was then used in a crime. Handgun Control Inc., has claimed to have won at least one such case in the Philadelphia area, where there is a waiting period and police conduct background checks.

Clearly, restrictive gun laws only penalize the nation's law-abiding firearms owners for the violent acts committed by a small number of criminals who commit a disproportionately large number of crimes. And, regrettably, "gun control" in any form diverts and wastes scarce resources which could instead be used to support genuine crime control measures.

The only effect of a waiting period is to deny someone the ability to defend himself or herself. In San Leandro, California, a female single parent was forced to endure 15 days of terror at the hands of a maniacal neighbor while she awaited the completion of the background check. The day after she was allowed to pick up her handgun, she killed her attacker with it.

Statistically, a waiting period would seem more likely to interfere with the estimated 650,000 citizens who use handguns for protection each year than the roughly 100,000 criminals who repeatedly misuse handguns -- generally acquired by theft or from fences, drug dealers, and the black market.

Yet the Wright-Rossi study found that three quarters of the convicted felons were able to get their most recent handgun within a day -- despite long criminal records.

As the Wall Street Journal noted shortly after the Lennon murder: "... the sudden hue and cry for more gun control at such times is a kind of cop-out, the sort of cop-out that is part of the [crime] problem in America.

"The country knows there is something wrong. Too many are turning to crimes of violence. The notion that this can be changed by controlling guns, we worry, may be an excuse for avoiding the hard work of making our decrepit criminal justice system start to function, and the even harder work of buttressing what used to be called the nations moral fiber."


SENTENCE THE CRIMINAL?

It is clear that the way to curb violent crime is to punish the criminal. Studies suggest that 75 - 85 percent of urban violence is perpetrated by career criminals, and 30 - 35 percent of robbery and murder is committed by persons on some form of conditional release, -- bail, probation, suspended sentence. To combat crime America must address this problem of recidivism and the "revolving door" system of justice.

Over a ten year period after the 1975 adoption of a mandatory penalty for using a firearm to commit a violent crime, Virginia's homicide rate fell 35.6 percent and robbery declined 23.6 percent. A 1974 Arizona law saw homicide fall 21.8 percent and robbery 32.2 percent. While the West South Central region of the United States saw robbery rise 32.2 percent, respectively, a 1975 Arkansas mandatory penalty statute viewed a 24.7 percent decrease in homicide and a 9.7 -More- percent decrease in robbery. South Carolina recorded an astounding 36.7 percent decrease in homicide and 8.8 percent decrease in robbery after adopting a mandatory penalty.

Clearly, instead of imposing further penalties -- in the form of "waiting periods" and additional assaults on the civil rights of law-abiding gun owners and gun purchasers, the proper approach is to implement mandatory punishment for the criminal abuser of firearms.

The violent crime rate has decreased in part since 1980, because the number of persons in American prisons has increased from 315,000 in 1980 to 514,133 in 1986.

The remedy, or any appropriate penalty, must be after the commission of an offense if the presumption of innocence is to be preserved, indeed, if democracy itself is to survive.

Printed from NRA publication IL3N1064 "The Case Against Waiting Periods"


RKBA.016 - Is the United States the most violent nation? Version 1.1 (last changed on 91/03/21 at 23:05:58)

DESCRIPTION
===========
A spate of media "claims" implying that the United States is the highest crime nation in the world has been observed in the media recently. However, if we were to look at homicide, rape, and larceny (burgalry, robbery, etc.) we find a quite different story.

In homicide, the US is number 11, with a murder rate of 9.60 per 100,000. The nearest European country in the Netherlands, with a homicide rate of 7.15 per 100,000. However, elimination of high crime inner city rates pushes the per capita down to 3.77, below such countries as Luxemburg (5.25), Finland (4.88), West Germany (4.47), Scotland (3.82), and somewhat barely above Sweden (3.36).

Places such as Norway are not known to have massive illegal aliens, drug misuse problems, or large cultural inhomogeneities.

Of even more interest is the TREMENDOUSLY larger per capita rape numbers in the "non-violent peace loving" European counties. The Unites States at 26.30 is below such countries as Australia (90.82), West Germany (77.49), New Zealand (65.73), Netherlands (56.00), Scotland (44.69), Denmark (41.06), Sweden (40.52), Austria (30.42).

In the category of larceny (robbery, burglary etc.), the United States is below Italy and New Zealand, and somewhat above Denmark, West Germany, Scotland, Sweden, Austria, and England & Wales.

CONCLUSION
==========
The United States is NOT the most violent country in the world. While high in homicide, there are several European nations that have similar per capita homicide rates, without the presence of large scale drug problems or immigrant & illegal alien situations.

In terms of rape, the US lags TREMENDOUSLY behind some of the "civilized" and "non-violent" European countries.

In larceny (burglary, robbery), the US is again not a leader.

In short, given all the problems that the US has that European countries do NOT have, the US is surprisingly non-violent (relatively speaking).

                H O M I C I D E

                             PER         ABSOLUTE
RANK  COUNTRY                100,000     NUMBERS
====  =====================  =======     ========
  1   Lesotho                140.81       1,592
  2   Bahamas                 22.88          45
  3   Guyana                  22.21         610
  5   Netherlands Antilles    12.47          29
  6   Iraq                    11.94       1,243
  7   Sri Lanka               11.92       1,597
  8   Cyprus                  11.11          71
  9   Trinidad & Tobago       10.41         113
 10   Jamaica                 10.25         205
 11   United States            9.60      18,155
 12   Kuwait                   9.18          78
 13   Tanzania                 8.98       1,295
 14   Kenya                    8.66       1,047
 15   Madagascar               8.14         692
 16   Burma                    8.06       2,304
 17   Venezuela                7.19         834
 18   Netherlands              7.15         964
 19   Chile                    6.69         723
 20   St.Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla  6.67           4
 21   Jordan                   6.06         103
 22   Syria                    5.52         331
 23   Luxembourg               5.25          21
 24   Mali                     5.02         251
 25   Finland                  4.88         229
 26   Malawi                   4.57         183
 27   West Germany             4.47       2,771
 28   Monaco                   4.40           1
 29   Sierra Leone             4.00         120
 30   Sconand                  3.82         199
 31   Libya                    3.77          85
 32   Egypt                    3.45       1,241
 33   India                    3.40      19,480
 34   Sweden                   3.36         275
 35   Austria                  3.06         229
 36   Italy                    2.95       1,643
 37   Singapore                2.77          62
 38   Nigeria                  2.75       1,510
 39   Australia & Papua N. G.  2.73         411
 40   France                   2.70       1,429
 41   Philippines              2.68       1,106
 42   Hong Kong                2.59         110
 43   Malaysia                 2.49         298
 44   Peru                     2.44         376
 45   England & Wales          2.24       1,102
 46   Denmark                  2.03         102
 47   Japan                    1.74       1,912
 48   New Zealand              1.51          46
 49   South Korea              1.33         460
 50   Zaire                    1.19         286
 51   Molocco                  1.11         199
 52   Ivory Coast              1.09          63
 53   Solomon Islands          1.08           2
 54   Greece                   0.87          77
 55   Indonesia                0.87       1,120
 56   Uganda                   0.83          83
 57   Fiji                     0.71           4
 58   Spain                    0.67         233
 59   Norway                   0.50          20

----------------------  R A P E  -----------------
                               PER         ABSOLUTE
RANK  COUNTRY                  100,000     NUMBERS
====  =======================  =======     ========
   1  Australia                 90.82       13,674
   2  West Germany              77.49       48,075
   3  Solomon Islands           76.96          142
   4  Venezuela                 66.84        7,754
   5  New Zealand               65.73        2,000
   6  Bahamas                   62.02          122
   7  Libya                     56.58        1,277
   8  Netherlands               56.00        7,554
   9  England & Wales           50.20       24,698
  10  Lesotho                   49.53          560
  11  Kuwait                    48.35          411
  12  Netherlands Antilles      46.96          109
  13  Scotland                  44.69        2,330
  14  Denmark                   41.06        2,068
  15  Sweden                    40.52        3,313
  16  Guyana                    34.50          264
  17  Hong Kong                 32.97        1,401
  18  Austria                   30.42        2,274
  19  Peru                      29.14        4,482
  20  St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla  26.67           16
  21  Monaco                    26.41            6
  22  United States             26.30       40,168
  23  France                    26.19       13,828
  24  Fiji                      26.07          147
  25  Lebanon                   25.93          778
  26  Trinidad & Tobago         25.23          274
  27  Jamaica                   24.95          499
  28  Norway                    23.43          931
  23  Chile                     22.51        2,362
  30  Uganda                    16.48        1,648
  31  South Korea               13.90        4,854
  32  Morocco                   12.69        2,284
  33  Spain                     12.21        4,310
  34  Italy                     11.87        6,605
  35  Malawi                    11.45          458
  36  Tanzania                  10.31        1,487
  37  Japan                     10.30       11,338
  38  Kenya                      9.76        1,180
  39  Finland                    9.44          443
  40  Luxembourg                 9.25           37
  41  Jordan                     7.71          131
  42  Sierra Leone               7.47          224
  43  Zaire                      5.85        1,404
  44  Mali                       5.60          280
  45  Malaysia                   4.72          564
  46  Burma                      3.79        1,085
  47  Singapore                  3.67           82
  48  Iraq                       3.65          380
  49  Madagascar                 3.25          276
  50  Nigeria                    2 60        1,428
  51  Greece                     2.31          203
  52  Sri Lanka                  1.53          205
  53  Philippines                1.08          447
  54  Indonesia                  0.90        1,162
  55  Cyprus                     0.63           40
  56  Syria                      0.52           31
  57  India                      0.51        2,919
  58  Egypt                      0.34          122
  59  Ivory Coast                0.17           10

Sources: BWR84 #####


Re: Supreme Court interpretations of the Second Amendment.

The Court most recently mentioned the Second Amendment in dicta in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 110 S. Ct. 1839 (1990). Verdugo-Urquidez was a citizen and resident of Mexico, and a drug dealer. The Mexican police arrested him in Mexico, and brought him to the U.S., where the U.S. cops arrested him. With the permission of the Mexican police, the U.S. narcs searched his residence (in Mexico), and found documentary evidence detailing drug shipments to the U.S. Verdugo-Urquidez moved for suppression of that evidence as a violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The question for the court: Does the Fourth Amendment apply to non-resident non-citizens outside the U.S.? The answer: no.

The court's reasoning: The Fourth Amendment protects the right of "the people" to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. Who are "the people"? According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, the phrase "the people" was a term of art used by the Framers. Rehnquist wrote:

The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1, ("Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble"); Art. I, s 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. 110 S. Ct. at 1061.

Since Verdugo-Urquidez is not part of "the people," he is not protected by the Fourth Amendments (nor, apparently, by the First, Second, Ninth, or Tenth).

The Supreme Court therefore views the words "the people" in the Second Amendment to have the same meaning as in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. If "the people" really meant the right of states to maintain a militia (as suggested by J. Sultan), then we would be left with the absurd notion that only the states have the right to peaceably assemble, only the states have the right to be secure in their persons and property, etc. The Supreme Court's position is indisputable: the Second Amendment protects the individual right to bear arms. Also instructive is the Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session (February 1982):

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.

This hardly supports J. Sultan's premise that an individual right is "universally unaccepted."

Anti-gunners frequently use the "big lie" technique referred to by D. Malbuff, to the effect that "the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to individual citizens; it only protects the right of the National Guard to go duck hunting." Here is a nutshell history of Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment:

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Mr. Miller was a very bad dude, charged with a laundry list of heinous crimes. They threw the book at him, including carrying a sawed-off shotgun, a violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. When his case came up before the Supreme Court, Miller had skipped; he was a fugitive. No lawyer appeared to argue his side of the case; only the government lawyers showed up. (Some fair trial, huh?) Now, if the Second Amendment only protected the state militia, the case would have been easy. All the court would have had to do was say that Miller could not own a gun because he was not a member of the militia, end of discussion. But they didn't say that. Why not? In effect, they conceded that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, but still said that it was constitutional for the government to prohibit sawed-off shotguns. Their reasoning?

Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

There are three interesting things about the court's statement. First, of course it was not in their notice; nobody was present to bring it to their notice! Second, had a knowledgeable advocate been present, he would have brought to the court's notice that short-barrelled shotguns have long been used as ordinary military equipment, from Revolutionary War blunderbusses to luparas in the Spanish-American War to trench-cleaners in The War To End All Wars. Subsequently, U.S. troops used sawed-off shotguns in World War II, and "tunnel rats" used them in Vietnam.

Third, and most important, is that the court seems to be saying that the Second Amendment only protects the right of individual citizens to have "ordinary military equipment." Very interesting. What are semi-automatic "assault rifles" if not ordinary military equipment? When California's assault rifle ban reaches the Supreme Court, Miller will present a real problem for the anti-gunners.

There are no other Supreme Court cases in the 20th Century, but there are dozens of state cases that support the individual right to bear weapons (not "sporting goods"). See, for example, State v. Swanton, 129 Ariz. 131 (Ct. App. 1981) ("[T]he term 'arms' as used means such arms as are recognized in civilized warfare. . . . ")

State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359 (1980) ("[T]he terms 'arms' most likely would include only the modern day equivalents of the weapons used by colonial militiamen.")

also

State ex rel. City of Princeton v. Buckner, 377 S.E. 2d 139 (W.Va. 1988) Barnett v. State, 72 Or. App. 585 (1985) State v. Delgado, 298 Or. 395 (1984) City of Lakewood v. Pillow, 180 Colo. 20 (1972) City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, 82 N.M. 626 (Ct. App. 1971)

and dozens more.

There were few, if any, gun control laws on the books until after the Civil War. Then, suddenly, every Southern state had a law prohibiting newly-freed slaves from owning guns. (Guess why? It was getting damned dangerous for the Klansmen to lynch blacks.) The Fourteenth Amendment rendered those "Black Codes" unconstitutional, so the Southerners figured out some backdoor methods. One was banning cheap guns (the term Saturday Night Special has its origin in the racial slur "Niggertown Saturday Night," which was similar to "Father's Day in Harlem" or "Chinese Fire Drill.") Another was a permit system/waiting period/ background check, requiring approval of the sheriff, who usually just happened to be a Klansman.

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876). In Louisiana, a hundred or so good old boys got word that there were some "uppity niggers" having an organizational meeting, to try to protect themselves against constant attacks by white gangs. The good old boys got together and crashed the party. They took away the Negroes' guns, and then proceeded to murder them. They were charged with conspiring to deprive their victims of their constitutional rights to assemble, and to bear arms.

The court ruled that (1) the First and Second Amendments did not apply to the states, (2) the Fourteenth Amendment only prohibited the State from depriving the people of their rights, and the good old boys were not agents of the State, and (3) the controlling Enforcement Acts protected only those rights "granted by the Constitution." The court said that the rights to assemble and to bear arms were fundamental rights. They were not "granted" by the Constitution, but were inalienable; they were rights with which the victims were "endowed by their Creator." Therefore, the rights were not protected by the Enforcement Acts, and the KKK boys literally got away with murder! (This is a case proudly cited by people who call themselves "liberals," instead of the racist scum that they really are.)

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886). Presser had organized a society of German immigrants (Lehr und Wehr Verein) who believed that regular military drill was an important part of good citizenship. Four hundred of them paraded through downtown Chicago, carrying rifles. Presser was charged with parading without a license, and organizing and maintaining a private army. He claimed that the Illinois statutes violated his rights under the First Amendment (freedom of assembly) and the Second Amendment (right to bear arms). The court ruled that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, not to the States, and that any State could prohibit free speech, free exercise of religion, assembly, bearing of arms, etc.

In Presser, the Court never mentioned the individual right to bear arms; the case dealt only with an armed organization.

Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894). Texas had a law forbidding the carrying of weapons, and authorizing arrest without warrant for any violation. Miller claimed this violated the Second Amendment and the Fourth Amendment. The Court again ruled that "the restrictions of this amendments operate only upon the Federal power." But they admitted that it was possible that the Fourteenth Amendment might cause the Bill of Rights to apply to the States as well. However, Miller did not raise his objection early enough. "If the Fourteenth Amendment limited the power of the States as to such rights . . . we think it was fatal to this claim that it was not set up in the trial court." Id. at 538.

Subsequent to Cruikshank, Presser, and Miller v. Texas, the Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment does in fact cause the Bill of Rights to apply to the States. In effect, those three cases have been invalidated. To believe otherwise is to believe that the States can restrict religion, speech, and assembly, to execute unreasonable searches and seizures, to deny jury trials, or to infringe the right to bear arms.

An important note: the Court never doubted for an instant that the right to bear arms was not an individual right which the Federal government could not infringe. These cases never talked about the Second Amendment being a right of States to organize militias. It has always been assumed that the right to bear arms is a right of individual citizens to bear arms. Perhaps the Supreme Court's most infamous decision was Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857). Chief Justice Taney said that Negroes could not be "citizens," because if they were, they would have the right to vote, to assemble, to speak on political subjects, to travel freely, and "to keep and carry arms wherever they went." Id. at 417. Taney, the classic racist, found that prospect inconceivable. It is noteworthy, though, that the Supreme Court considered the right to carry guns wherever they go an individual right of every citizen, along with voting, speaking, assembling. "Nor can Congress deny the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel anyone to be a witness against himself. . . ." Id. at 450. Obviously, "the people" refers to all citizens, not the states or militia, or the rest of the sentence becomes meaningless. See Verdugo-Urquidez, supra.

What the Second Amendment protects is an individual right to bear military weapons, not for hunting, not for target shooting, not for repelling foreign invaders, but for the purpose of preventing oppression of the people by their own government. The historical, textual, structural, doctrinal, prudential, judicial, and legislative evidence is devastating. Sultan's claim that this is "universally unaccepted" is as ludicrous as Saddam Hussein's claim of victory over the Great Satan.

Any intelligent person who wishes to study the matter seriously should begin with S. Levinson, The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L.J. 637. Professor Levinson (University of Texas) is a devout liberal (as am I) who set out to prove once and for all that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right (etc. ad nauseam, per Sultan). To his great embarrassment (hence the title), he found overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He had the academic integrity to admit it, for which he deserves great admiration. He does not like gun ownership, any more than some people like flag-burning or organized religion, but he recognizes that the individual right exists, whether one likes it or not.


RKBA.015 - Are firearms a leading cause of death of children? Version 1.1 (last changed on 91/03/15 at 12:21:18)

DESCRIPTION
===========
In some recent and lurid accounts in the media, the claim has been advanced that the "leading cause of death among children" is firearms. Some variations of this claim state that is the "leading cause of death of young black males".

Well, this just does not sound right. In turning to factual sources, I am hampered by not having information that is up to date as I like. However, rather than wait, I have decided to post the information I do have, which in terms of "completeness", is based on 1985 data.

I have checked 1990 data, which only gives death counts on a per capita basis without segragation by age groups. However, there are NO significant changes in the per capita ratios, which is a very strong indication that the 1985 figures can be rationally extrapolated.

As later information is available, I will update this posting.

In 1985:

27,607 children (ages under 18) died.

11,927 children died from all accidents.

6,639 children died in motor accidents.

1,613 children died by drowning.

1,249 children died from fires and/or burns.

1,445 children died from miscellaneous/other causes.

637 children died from firearms. (429 children died from ACCIDENTS involving firearms) (208 children (ages 14 and under) were murdered by firearms.)

An additional 888 "children" ages 15 through 19 were murdered by firearms.

The breakdown in homicides group in 5 year groups, and the group 15-19 spans what is clearly a child's age (15,16, and 17??), and ages that are not children.

SUMMARY
=======

Of the 27,607 deaths of children (< 18) in 1985, 637 children died from firearms (both accidents and homicides). Yet, ten times MORE children, 6,639, died in motor accident alone. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THAT FIREARMS EVEN BEGIN TO APPROACH BEING A LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH FOR CHILDREN!

Current (incomplete) 1990 statistics show that the percentages are still the same (+- 5%).

CONCLUSION
=============
Firearms are clearly NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, a leading cause of death for children (ages 18 and under). In facts, firearms are involved (both homicide and accidents) in ONLY 2.3% of deaths of children.


                   DEATHS BY AGE BY MAJOR CAUSES
                                                                 S
      P T              A D                                       U
      O H              C E                                       F
      P O              C A            D           F              F
      U U              I T            R           I         P    O
      L S     A D      D H     M D    O           R         O    C
      A A     L E      E S     O E    W     F B   E    F    I    A     O
      T N     L A      N       T A    N     I U   A    A    S    T     T
 A    I D       T      T       O T    I     R R   R    L    O    I     H
 G    O S       H      A       R H    N     E N   M    L    N    O     E
 E    N         S      L         S    G     S S   S    S    S    N     R
===  =====   ======   ====    ====  =====  ====  ===  ===  ===  ====  ====
<1   3,736    4,030    890     179     90   111    2   45   14   171   278
 1   3,496    2,837    863     263    204   153    5   39   25   38    136
 2   3,561    1,941    792     265    177   177   12   20   12   19    110
 3   3,608    1,389    653     248    124   167   10   13    3    8     80
 4   3,604    1,172    548     240     95   116   14    8    1    6     68
 5   3,548      996    463     242     71    73    9    2    3    6     57
 6   3,428      938    454     242     54    74    9    8    2    9     56
 7   3,387      775    369     202     44    60   10    6    0    2     45
 8   3,256      736    342     185     47    51   12    6    2    4     35
 9   3,204      723    367     192     55    45   18    6    1   11     39
10   3,317      678    313     171     44    26   27    5    0   11     29
11   3,207      728    339     177     44    35   23    7    1   12     40
12   3,277      856    402     211     57    31   37    5    2   12     47
13   3,487    1,076    522     278     72    27   38   14    4   14     75
14   3,813    1,427    681     419     82    31   52   12    8   12     65
15   3,768    1,850    929     827     99    24   57   11   10   15     86
16   3,681    2,531  1,391   1,043    125    28   52   21   19    8     95
17   3,603    2,924  1,609   1,255    129    20   42   26   18   15    104
--- ------   ------ ------  ------  -----  ----  ---  ---  ---  ---  -----
TOT 62,981   27,607 11,927   6,639  1,613  1,249 429  254  125  373  1,445

18   3,628    3,718  2,095   1,649    150    25   53   38   19   14    147
l9   3,872    4,045  2,178   1,708    123    37   37   36   33   14    190
20   4,052    4,144  2,168   1,646    t49    37   60   46   38   11    181
21   4,134    4,613  2,367   1,77S    137    53   51   56   54   21    220
22   4,169    4,601  2,168   1,584    142    50   52   45   75   17    203
23   4,250    4,698  2,144   1,537    156    51   32   48   66   13    241
--- ------   ------ ------  ------  -----  ----  ---  ---  ---  ---  -----
TOT 87,744   54,207 26,269  17,612  2,516  1446  755  543  491  309  2,597

Source for above: NSC88
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      MURDER BY AGE GROUP BY WEAPON
Uniform Crimes
         --------------------- MURDER  WEAPON ------------------------
                                                                 S
                                              E        N     S   U
                   F       S                  X        A     T   F
                   I   C   T     O            P        R     R   F
                   R   U   A     B        P   L        C     A   O
           T       E   T   B   B J   H    O   O        O     N   C   E
           O       A   T   B   L E   A F  I   S   F    T     G   A   T
A          T       R   I A I   U C   N E  S   I   I    I     L   T   H
G          A       M   N N N   N T   D E  O   V   R    C     E   E   E
E          L       S   G D G   T S   S T  N   E   E    S     D   D   R
=====   ======  =====  =====  ====  ==== ==  ==  ===  ==    ==  ==  ===
<1        190       4     16    9     91  0   0    7   1     1  21   40
1-4       325      47     26    20   147  0   0   16   5     0  17   47
5-9       150      45     24    12    33  0   0    9   0     8   6   13
10-14     215     112     43    18    13  0   0    6   1     9   3   10
15-19   1,347     888    283    35    43  0   0   17   2     18  6   55
20-24   2,734   1,714    654   107   103  0   1   18   2     47  6   82
25-29   2,973   1,987    617   102   111  0   0   22   6     44  8   76
30-34   2,397   1,529    530   104   106  0   2   18   4     45  4   55
35-39   1,796   1,130    397    92    77  2   1   19   3     24  4   47
40-44   1,291     810    243    73    75  1   2   15   3     22  3   44
45-49     890     527    187    64    63  0   1   13   0     10  4   21
5O-54     686     364    158    62    55  1   1   13   1     11  0   20
55-59     613     340    134    62    32  1   0    6   1     11  2   24
60-64     507     242    109    56    46  1   3   13   0     10  5   22
60-69     363     159     69    45    37  0   0   14   0     15  9   15
70-74     260     98      54    36    27  0   0    8   2     12  4   19
>74       425     111     90    61    86  1   0   19   0     17 11   29
unknown   383     189     60    14    35  0   0   10   0      7  2   66
-----   ------  -----  -----  ----  ---- --  --  ---  --    --  --  ---
<18     1,452     580    226   76    303  0   0   47   8   25   47  140
>=18   15,710   9,527  3,408  882    842  7   1  186  23  279   66  479
Total  17,545  10,296  3,694  972  1,180  7  11  243  31  311  115  685

Source: UCR85

IN THE HEAT OF THE MOMENT
By James D. Wright

Bob and Jim are good drinking buddies. After a night at their favorite bar, they head back to Jim's trailer for some whiskey. Jim begins praising his new girlfriend. Bob questions her fidelity and claims that he has slept with her. Seized by uncontrollable rage, Jim grabs a loaded .44 from the kitchen drawer and ends the conversation with a bang.

This is the sort of scenario that most people probably imagine when they hear that the majority of murders involve individuals who knew each other before the crime. Based on this impression, gun-control advocates argue that most homicides do not involve murderous intent. Rather, they are committed in the heat of the moment, in disputes or altercations among loved ones or close associates that escalate into rage -- disputes that turn fatal not so much because anyone intended to kill but because, in that lamentable fit of anger, a gun was at hand. And if that is really how most murders happen, it follows that if fewer guns were "at hand," fewer murders would be committed.

But the data on relationships between homicide victims and their killers tell a different story. The conclusion in favor of gun control simply does not follow from the evidence.

FBI figures for 1987 and 1988 reveal that murders by strangers -- for example, in the course of a robbery -- are rare. They account for only about one in eight homicides (12.6 percent). But this does not imply that the remaining seven in every eight homicides involve loved ones slaying one another. After all, very few people love everyone they meet. Just how close is the relationship between victim and killer in the typical murder?

In many cases -- nearly a third of the total -- the authorities simply cannot determine the relationship. Next to "unknown," the largest relationship category is "acquaintance," accounting for approximately one additional third of the murders. You might think that "acquaintance" refers to fairly close associates, but the FBI tallies neighbors, friends, boyfriends, girlfriends, and all types of relatives in their own separate categories. It there were any degree of intimacy or closeness between acquaintances, the FBI would almost certainly classify the homicide under another heading. In this context, "acquaintance" means only that the victim and killer had some idea of each other's identities before the murder.

All categories of relatives combined account for about one in six murders (15.9 percent o average). About half of these are slayings of spouses by spouses. Friends and neighbors add an average of 9.8 percent to the homicide total. Altogether, then, relatives, friends, and neighbors commit only about a quarter (25.7 percent) of murders. So it's not true that "most" murders involve persons who share some degree of intimacy or closeness. Most murders -- some three-quarters of them -- are committed by casual acquaintances (30.2 percent), perfect strangers (12.8 percent), or persons unknown (31.2 percent).

Gun control advocates, however, can easily convey the opposite impression of these data. By simply omitting the unknown relationships from the calculation and including casual acquaintances within the category of intimates, they can make it seem as if every murder other than those by perfect strangers involve intimates. But given what the category of acquaintance specifically omits, this would be an irresponsible misrepresentation.

That most murder victims know their killers prior to the crime is scarcely a surprise. That people know one another is not in itself evidence that they like one another. Ordinarily, the only people a murderer would have good reasons to kill would be people he or she knows. Indeed, slayings in the course of some other felony are the only obvious exception; random killings are understandably quite rare. So contrary to the common assumption, some degree of prior acquaintance between victim and offender definitely does not rule out murderous intent.

Cases of family members slaying one another figure prominently in the gun control debate but represent fewer than one-sixth of all murders. Studies of family homicide have shown that most of these families (about 85 percent of them) have had previous domestic quarrels serious enough to bring the police to the residence: in nearly half of the cases, the police had been called to the residence five or more times before the killing occurred. Indeed, most of the families in which such homicides occur have histories of abuse and violence going back years or even decades. These slayings are generally not isolated outbursts of rage between normally placid and loving couples. They are, instead, the culminating episodes in long, violent, abusive family relations.

At least some family homicides probably do result from the stereotypical "moment of rage." Others result from a thoroughly willful intention to kill. Knowing only that victim and killer are related by blood or marriage does not in itself tell us which explanation is correct for a given homicide.

Consider the bizarre case of Theron and Leila Morris, a Florida couple recently accused of killing their son, Christopher. Police say the Morrises were plotting with their son to murder his ex-wife for her insurance money. Then the conspirators learned that the ex-wife's insurance policy had lapsed, so there was nothing to be gained in killing her. Evidently annoyed by this turn of events, the Morrises then allegedly plotted between themselves to kill Christopher in order to collect on HIS insurance policy, which was still in force and worth twice what his ex-wife's policy was worth. The Associated Press reported that the parents were also angry with Morris because he had "sold them bogus cocaine for $1,000 that they had intended to resell."

Morris's killing will appear in the FBI's 1990 Uniform Crime Report tabulation as a family homicide; having been slain by his own parents, he will be included in the category "son." What, then, will we know about the circumstances of his death, given that he was the child of his killers? Nothing at all.

How many murders are committed in a moment of rage, brought to fruition largely because a gun was available, and how many result from an unambiguous intention to kill? The fact is, nobody knows the answer to this question. An adequate answer would require getting inside the heads of murders as they contemplate and commit their crimes.

Clearly, though, the assumption that heat-of-the-moment murders far outnumber willful murders cannot be justified by evidence on prior victim-offender relationships. Such information does not support conclusions about homicidal motives or about the number of slayings that might be prevented if fewer guns were available.


Date: Wed, 5 Sep 90 13:07:49 PDT

Gun Week reports in its August 31 issue that homicides in Portland Oregon have fallen as concealed carry permits increased rapidly:

In the first seven months of 1990, 2,200 permits to carry a concealed weapon have been issued. Only 17 such permits were issued in [all of] 1989. Homicide has fallen 33% in the first six months of 1990 in Portland, measured against the same period last year.

In the same article, Allan Gottlieb notes that homicides increased 9 percent over the same period in Baltimore MD, which has a ban on "Saturday Night Specials." He also notices that homicides have increased 45 percent this year in New York City. There you are three times more likely to be murdered than die in an automobile accident. New York has a virtual ban on handgun possession by law-abiding citizens.

The decrease in homicides in Portland is the second largest in the country. The article does not tell the first largest decrease or the source of the source of the homicide numbers.

Oregon recently "liberalized" its CCW system to remove arbitrary police discretion in the issuance of permits. Typically the difference in wording is "shall" versus "may" be issued a permit. I believe they got this in exchange for a waiting period on handgun purchases.


AN EXAMINATION OF THE LEADING PRINCIPLES OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
by N. Webster, (Philadelphia 1787), pages 41 to 43:

[41]
But what is tyranny? Or how can a free people be deprived of their liberties? Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety. A people can never be deprived

[42]
of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power superior to any other power in the state. This position leads me directly to enquire, in what consists the power of a nation or of an order of men?

In some nations, legislators have derived much of their power from the influence of religion, or from the implicit belief which an ignorant an superstitious people entertain of the gods, and their interposition in every transaction of life. The Roman Senate sometimes availed themselves of this engine to carry their decrees and maintain their authority. This was particularly the case, under the aristocracy which succeeded the abolition of the monarchy. The augurs and priests were taken wholly from pa trician families (*). They constituted a distinct order of men--had power to negative any law of the people, by declaring that it was passed during the taking of the auspices.(^) This influence derived from the authority of opinion, was less perceptible, but as tyrannical as a military force. The same influence constitutes, as this day, a princical support of several governments on the eastern continent, and perhaps in the South America. But in North America, by a singular concurrence of circumstances, the possibility of establishing this influence, as a pillar of government, is totally precluded.

[43]
Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superiour to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the {\it power}, and jealousy will instantly inspire the {\it inclination}, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. In spite of all the nominal powers, vested in Congress by the Constitution, were the system once adopted in its fulest latitude, still the actually exercise of them would be frequently interrupted by popular jealousy. I am bold to say, that {\it ten} just and constitutuional measures would be resisted, where {\it one} unjust or oppressive law would be enforced. The powers vested in Congress are little more than {\it nominal}; nay {\it real} power cannot be vested in them, nor in any body, but the {\it people}. The source of power is in the {\it people} of this country, and cannot for ages, and probably never will, be removed.

In what does {\it real} power consist? The answer is short and plain--in {\it property}. Could

{he then continues on a discussion of the power of the government, and that is basically the power of controlling property}


You might also be interested to know how U.S. law defines the militia:

These sections are referred to as 10 USC 311.

TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


A Summary of studies on gun use and gun control.

o A study by the Centre for Disease Control conducted in April 1985 showed that "waiting periods have no effect on suicides."

o A study reported in the Annals of the American Academy of Political Science in May 1981 found that "most felons and other ineligibles who obtain guns do so not because the state's screening system fails to discern their criminal record, but rather because these people find ways of circumventing the screening system entirely."

o A 1985 Justice Department study showed that the primary means of gun acquisition by felons is theft.

o A University of Massachusetts study found that most criminals get their guns from other criminals.

o States with waiting periods do not have lower crime rates. No waiting period has ever been shown to have any effect on crime whatsoever.

o Since banning handguns in 1976, the homicide rate in the District of Columbia has risen 168% to 71.9 -- possibly the highest rate ever for a large American city. The gun-related homicide rate for the district has risen over 250%, while falling nationally and regionally.

o Since the Canadian firearms control act was brought in in 1978, the number of assaults with firearms in Toronto has quadrupled.

o Only 180 homicides in Canada involve firearms, and about 160 of those involved illegal firearms.

o In 1976 40% (6 million Canadians) of Canadian households contained a firearm. Approximately 190,000 firearms are imported into Canada in each year. In July 1989 3% of Canadians owned a handgun. In November 1990 the rate was 6%.

o FBI reports show that 85% of all firearms used in crimes are obtained illegally.

o In the USA, the number of children under 12 killed as a result of firearm accidents in the home is approximately 280 per year. In comparison, over 5,000 children drown every year in back yard swimming pools.

o Record-breaking murder rates in Washington D.C, New York City, and Detroit are often given as examples of the need for "handgun control," when in fact handguns are so already strictly regulated in these cities as to be practically banned. In New York, for example, you must obtain a permit from the Police Department before you can take your handgun out of your home, and even then you may do so only twice in one year, even if just for target practice at a shooting range. New York City enacted strict firearms ownership regulations in 1968, but has seen a 126% increase in the homicide rate and an increase of 250% in the gun-related crime rate.

o There is no evidence whatsoever showing that restriction of handgun ownership is related in any way to violent crime rates. In the U.S., in fact, there appears to be an direct relationship between strictness of gun laws and the rate of violent crime. In some communities where extremely permissive gun laws grant "permits to carry" practically for the asking, violent crime rates have plummeted drastically.

o In Portland Oregon in 1989 17 CCW (Carry Concealed Weapon) permits were issued, in 1990 2500 CCW permits were issued, in 1990 the murder rate in Portland DROPPED by 33%.

o In Orlando, Florida, in 1966 a series of brutal rapes swept the community. Citizens reacted to the tripling in the rate of rape over the previous year by buying handguns for self-defense; 200-300 firearms were being purchased each week from dealers, and an unknown number more from private parties. The newspaper there, the _Orlando Sentinel Star_, had an anti-gun editorial stance and tried to pressure the local police chief and city government to stop the flow of arms.

When that tactic failed, the paper decided that in the interest of public safety, they would sponsor a gun-training seminar in conjunction with the local police. Plans were made for a one-day training course at a local city park.

Plans were made for an expected 400-500 women. However, more than 2500 women arrived, and brought with them every conceivable kind of firearm. They had to park many blocks away, and the weapons were carried in in purses, paper bags, boxes, briefcases, holsters, and womens' hands. One police officer present said he'd never been so scared in his life.

Swamped, the organizers hastily dismissed the women with promises for a more thorough course with scheduled appointments. The course offered was for three classes/week, and within 6 months, the Orlando police had trained more than 6000 women in basic pistol marksmanship and the law of self-defense.

The results?

In 1966 there were 36 rapes in Orlando, triple the 1965 rate. In 1967, there were 4. Before the training, rape rates had been increasing in Orlando as nationwide. Five years after the training, rape was still below pre-training levels in Orlando, but up 308% in the surrounding areas, 96% for Florida overall, and 64% nationally.

Also in 1967, violent assault and burglary decreased by 25% in Orlando, in addition to the rape reductions.

In 1967, NOT A SINGLE WOMAN HAD FIRED HER WEAPON in self-defense. In 1967, NOT A SINGLE WOMAN HAD TURNED HER GUN ON HER HUSBAND OR BOYFRIEND. (No data are available for later years.)

The reason the program worked so spectacularly well is that it was widely known that Orlando women had the means and training to defend themselves from attackers. Rapists, being (somewhat) human, they are learning engines; they took their business elsewhere--to the detriment of the defenseless in those other locations

o In Florida since the gun laws have been modified to allow women who qualify to carry a gun concealed, the reported rape rate has DROPPED by 90%.

o Switzerland is a country with an assault weapon and ammunition in almost every home, yet there is very little crime.

o Japan has a total ban on civilian firearm ownership, yet in Sept-Oct 1990 in Okinawa prefecture, there were 28 shootings, resulting in the deaths of several police officers as reported in November 1990, Japan Today, CBC Newsworld.

o A recent study in the US found that an individual was much more likely to be a victim of violent crime in an area with strict gun control laws, than in an area with lax gun laws.

o Last year, about 25,000 murders were committed in the United States. About 9,000 of these were committed with handguns. This is in a country with 250,000,000 people, including 65,000,000 gun owners. Assuming that each of the 9,000 was committed by a different person, they represent approximately 1/7,000th of the gun owners in that country.

o US law enforcement statistics show that firearms were used by private citizens in self-defence (to deter, prevent or stop a crime) approximately 1,000,000 times in 1989. This resulted in 1500 to 2800 justifiable killings (0.15% to 0.28%) and 8700 to 16600 non-fatal legally permissible woundings (0.87 % to 1.66%). The remaining 98% involved neither killings nor woundings but rather warning shots fired or guns pointed or referred to. "Crime Control through the Private Use of Armed Force" Professor Gary Kleck, Feb 88, Social Problems.

o US Department of Justice victim studies show that overall, when rape is attempted, the completion rate is 36%. But when a woman defends herself with a gun, the completion rate drops to 3%. Overall victimization studies show that for all violent crimes, including assault, rape, and robbery, the safest course for the victim is to resist with a firearm. The second safest course is passive compliance with the attacker, but this tactic approximately doubles the probability of death or injury for the victim. All other tactics (mace, whistles, hand-to-hand combat, screams, and so forth) have even worse outcomes.

o A Florida State University study indicates that law-abiding citizens use handguns approximately 645,000 times a year in self-protection, with an additional 350,000 self-defense uses of rifles and shotguns. For thousands, the possession and use of a firearm is the difference between being the victim of a violent crime and successfully thwarting a criminal attack.

o The concept of a "cooling off" period has no basis in fact. A Kansas City study showed that in 90% of domestic violence cases, police had been called to the scene several times before. A Police Foundation study showed that only 2% of all handguns traced to crimes were less than a month old.

o Marc Lapine was seen at the Montreal university several months before his murderous rampage, which suggests he planned his attack months in advance.

o John Hinckley,who shot former US President Reagan and James Brady, bought his firearm legally from a Texas gun store 5 months beforehand, and also possessed several other more powerful firearms. He had been arrested several days earlier for attempting to smuggle a firearm aboard an airplane. At that time a background check was performed and as he had no criminal record, he was able to plead guilty, pay a $62.50 fine, and was released.

o The "teflon-coated armour-piercing bullet" does not exist. A company called KTW developed a teflon-tipped bullet for penetrating car doors, but when fired into standard Kevlar body armour, it was even less effective than ordinary bullets, contrary to the claims of fanatical anti-gun lobbyists who trumpeted that this "new bullet rendered cops helpless, even with body armour." No police officer in the USA has been ever shot with armour piercing handgun ammunition.

KTW was setup in the early 1980's by police Sergeant Don Ward, police Lieutenant Turcus, and scientist Dr. Paul Kopsch. They sold their KTW round to the military and a handful of police departments and have never sold it to the public.

The NRA helped draft the final legislation which was adopted, which banned the sale of the KTW ("armor-piercing") bullet to anyone but police and military organizations. The ORIGINAL legislation, which the NRA opposed, would have banned any ammunition which could pierce a ballistic vest. That includes the smallest caliber (.22), which can slip between the fibers of the kevlar vest. It also includes most rifle ammunition, but very little handgun ammunition.

In short, the legislation as proposed would have banned most calibers, including ones like .270 Winchester and .30-30, which have been used since the turn of the century for hunting.

o "Plastic guns that are invisible to airport X-ray machines" do not exist. The only pistol on the market today with any plastic parts is the Glock, and it is approximately 70% metal (83% by weight) and the high strength polymer frame contains barium. A similar pistol is made by Ramline, but only in .22 calibre.

The NRA helped draft a bill which bans guns which can pass airport security. Mind you, no such guns exist; the gun which caused all the controversy, the Glock, contains a large amount of metal, and there is a metal polymer in the plastic portions which shows up on an X-ray machine.

The Glock is very reliable, and has become the standard sidearm for a large number of law enforcement agencies across the country, including, if memory serves, Washington D.C. and parts of New York.

One of the main proponents of the original legislation, Senator Metzenbaum, revealed his true opinion. When pressed, he exclaimed: "I don't care about airport security! I want to get the guns!"

o After lobbying by hysterical anti-gunners, US government legislation has been passed banning possession of "teflon-coated armour-piercing bullets" and "plastic guns invisible to airport X-ray machines," even though neither of these has ever existed.

o There are approximately 247,000 legally owned fully automatic weapons (Assault rifles, machine guns, sub machine guns) in the USA, according to the BATF, in the years since 1934, NONE of these weapons has been used by their legal owner in a criminal offence.

o There are approximately 5,000 legally owned fully automatic weapons (Assault rifles, machine guns, submachine guns) in Canada, yet since 1934 NONE of these weapons has been used by their legal owner in a criminal offence.

o In a paper presented to the Royal Society in 1663, Palmer described the theory of operation used by modern machine guns, both recoil and gas-operated. In 1718, Puckle was granted a patent on an automatic weapon. Multiple-barrel weapons, which Palmer's and Puckle's weren't, were developed centuries earlier. Some of these earlier guns also used a rather clever way of getting multiple shots from the same barrel without reloading. Revolvers had also been invented by the 1770s and the Brits actually used semi-autos against the colonials.

o Bolt action and lever action rifles are convertible to be fully automatic weapons. At the turn of the century John Browning's first machine gun was converted from a lever action rifle. During World War One, the factory in Canada converted the Ross bolt action rifle into the Huot machine gun. During World War Two in New Zealand, 2000 Lee Enfield bolt action rifles were converted into the Charlton light machine gun.

o In 1990 the state of Florida, faced with increasing pressure to condemn "assault weapons," assembled a commission to study the evidence and then issue a report to the governor and legislature.

The panel, comprised of lawmakers, citizens, representatives from both pro- and anti-gun groups and law enforcement officials, spent several months examining data supplied by both state and federal law enforcement agencies. The group also heard testimony from Florida police officers who work within some of the region's worst criminal battle zones.

Early this spring the commission announced the results of their labors, with the findings mirroring similar studies conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). In summary, the commission concluded that based on police reports, actual testimony and statistics provided by federal agencies, the use of "assault weapons" by criminals constituted only a fraction of a percent of types of firearms employed in felonious activity.

The commission discovered that media hype and anti-gun advertising had created a sinister ambience around these firearms without actually clarifying what the guns were. The term "assault weapon" is generally defined as a military weapon capable of both semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Written testimony supplied to the commission indicated that fully automatic firearms were rarely if ever used by criminals. In fact, there was no evidence that a licensed fully automatic firearm has ever been instrumental in a reported crime.

The panel found that the term "assault weapon" as portrayed by the media referred to semiautomatics in general, especially guns resembling military-style combat firearms. The resulting confusion made reporting by police officials difficult at best, the commission determined. As a result, they called for a clarified reporting system that would indicate the type, make, caliber and action of any firearm used in a crime.

Even with the confusion, actual data available still indicated that use of semi-autos by criminals was negligible. This supported BATF findings nationwide that semiautomatic firearms were not "20 times more likely to be used in a crime" and were not the "weapon of choice" of drug dealers. These assumptions have been advanced by anti-gun organizations, have formed the basis of a discriminatory newspaper study, and have often been echoed by media commentators.

o The Florida report, in concert with federal studies, also found that stolen guns rather than over-the-counter purchases were most often employed by criminals. Some anti-gun groups insist that Florida gun shops are doing a brisk trade supplying "assault weapons" to drug gangs. The commission found no evidence to support this accusation.

In conclusion, the commission could not uncover any reason to place restrictions upon the sale of semiautomatic firearms and determined that these guns posed no particular menace to law enforcement. Instead they called for harsh mandatory sentences for the criminal misuse of firearms, an end to plea-bargaining in firearms-related crimes, better reporting procedures in naming firearms used in crimes, and an improved database to prohibit point-of-purchase sales and the issue of carry permits to individuals with a history of mental incompetency.

o New Jersey just enacted the most harsh "assault weapon" ban in the country. Owning a BB gun is now felony possession of an assault weapon. According to the bill, a BB gun is capable of causing injury and often holds more than 15 pellets. None of the weapons banned had been used in a criminal offence in New Jersey in the previous 5 years.

But contrary to what the media reported, the police didn't want the favor. The law enforcement community generally thought that Gov. James J. Florio went off the deep end by making the assault weapon ban his top priority.

The New Jersey Chiefs of Police voted against the bill 197-1. The Fraternal Order of Police testified against the bill the state Legislature. The Police Benevolent Association was persuaded to abstain on the issue, after Florio threatened to rescind a police benefits package that had recently been agreed to.

o In Washington, D.C., there are a number of police lobbies that do support "assault weapon" bans (though narrower than the New Jersey one). Yet it's not clear that the lobbyists have the working police solidly behind them.

o Last year the National Association of Chiefs of Police conducted a poll of command-rank officers: 69 percent thought law-abiding citizens ought to have the right to purchase any type of firearms; 62 percent opposed a federally-mandated waiting period.

A similar study of officers on the street found that about 88% opposed gun bans and supported public ownership of firearms.

Yet Handgun Control's claim to have the active support of "every major police organization" for its gun prohibitions and waiting periods is dishonest. The National Sheriffs Association, the American Federation of Police and the National Association of Chiefs of Police have refused to board the Handgun Control train.

There is one group of police that generally does back more gun control -- big-city police chiefs and the organizations they run. Their voice certainly deserves to be heard, but too often the voices of other officers are silenced. For example, San Jose, Calif., Police Chief Joseph McNamara raises funds for Handgun Control on official city stationary and claims to represent the views of "every law enforcement officer." But when rank-and-file San Jose officer Leroy Pile spoke out against gun control on his own time, the chief had him suspended and tried to fire him.

o In Maryland, during the 1988 election, pro-gun police officers were forbidden to speak out against a gun control proposal that was on the ballot. Maryland gun control proponents, including Gov. William Donald Schaefer, then claimed to be fighting for the law enforcement community. o Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates has denounced "semi-autos," in which he asserted that their massive use by criminals, their excessive power, their use in drive-by shootings, and their easy convertibility to "full auto." Chief Gates is now facing calls for his resignation as a result of the video-taped beating of a black man by several white officers.

o At the same time, the LAPD ballistics expert produced evidence that such firearms accounted for about 3 percent of crime guns, were difficult if not impossible in most cases to convert and were almost never converted, and that drive-by shootings rarely involved more than three to five rounds.

o California recently passed an "assault weapon ban". The firearms banned included several non-existent firearms, as well as a single shot shotgun. Most of the firearms banned were not capable of full-auto fire, and thus were not assault weapons. Approximately 300,000 of these firearms are in legal hands in California. The state then required all current owners of these weapons to register them by Dec 31, 1990, but only printed a fraction of the registration forms required and so most gun owners were not able get the required forms. As a result, only 30,000 firearms were registered on time and another 20,000 or so late in registration. These late registrations were then turned over to state Justice Department for legal action against those people who tried to obey the law.

o Leading studies from the U.S. Justice Department indicate that criminals fear meeting an armed victim more than they fear running from the police. In fact, more than a third of the felons surveyed admitted to having been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim." Morever, almost 40% of the felons surveyed admitted there was at least one time when they decided not to commit a crime for fear that the victim was armed.

From the Reuters News Service May 1, 1991


Headline: Police Officials Say Citizens Should Take Up Arms

U.S. Police chiefs see the breakdown of the justice system as the main cause of crime and believe citizens should learn how to handle a weapon, according to a survey released Wednesday.

A poll taken for the National Association of Chiefs of Police surveyed heads of more than 15,400 U.S. law enforcement agencies and found that 87 percent think citizens "should take training in self-defense with firearms to protect their homes and property".

The poll showed that 83.6 percent believe the criminal justice system has broken down to the point that it's inability to prosecute and imprison criminals is the major cause of crime, and 95.1 percent said that courts are "too soft on criminals in general".

Nearly 90 percent believed their own departments are understaffed and three out of four said that they cannot provide the same level of service as a decade ago, the survey said.

The association is a non-profit organization that operates the American Police Hall of Fame and Museum in Miami.


Positive Externalities of Gun Ownership
by John Kell

While a friend and I were talking about gun control, he remarked that it didn't matter to him if restrictions were placed on gun ownership because he didn't own a gun. What he failed to realize was the he benefits from civilian gun ownership whether he owns guns or not. He benefits because the ownership of guns by civilians has positive externalities.

Externatilities are unpaid-for effects that accrue to third parties from the use of property by its owners. The effect may be beneficial or harmful to the third parties. If beneficial, the effects are known as "positive externalities"; if harmful, they are called "negative externalities." For example, someone who walks down a residential street full of well-landscaped yards might emjoy the sight and smell of flowers in bloom. Though the individual homeowners paid for and cared for their particular yards, the walker also benefits. The pleasure the walker receives is a positive externality of the homeowners' yard care.

Advocates of gun control are quick to point out that innocent third parties are sometimes injured or killed by accidental discharge or criminal misuse of firearms. Indeed, these are negative externalities of guns in civilian hands. What advocates of gun control rarely acknowlege, or even understand, are the positive externalities of civilian gun ownership. Positive externalities may be less newsworthy, but they are just as real and far outweigh the negative externalities of the right to bear arms.

While accidents and criminal use of guns are reported as news, making the negative externalities of gun ownership readily apparent, the millions of peaceful interactions among people that occur each day are not reported. These peaceful events are taken for granted, and little thought is given as to what conditions brought them about in the first place. Millions awake each morning and find that their homes haven't been burglarized. The vast majority of stores pass through day and night without being robbed. Many women walk alone or live alone without being accosted or raped. These peaceful happenings are due to many factors, such as burglar alarms, door locks, and police patrols, but many are due, in part, to civilian gun ownership.

One million times each year homeowners and storekeepers protect their property and lives using firearms; often this occurs without a shot being fired.[1] The mere sight of a gun often is enough to send a robber running. Impressive as this number is, it doesn't show the full extent to which the crime rate is lowered due to privately owned guns. In those cases where a gun owner thwarts a lawbreaker, it is obvious that having a gun benefited its owner. But those cases benefit non-owners as well. If the lawbreaker is killed, he will commit no crimes. If the lawbreaker is wounded, captured, or even escapes, his inclination to commit a similar crime in the future is probably lessened. The peace that arises from the disinclination or inability to commit another crime is a positive externality of gun ownership.

Crime Kept in Check

It cannot be known how many times each day potential burglars think, "I'm not going to break into that house; I might get shot." Even though it is difficult to evaluate how much crime is kept in check by civilian gun ownership, there is evidence that suggests its damping effect is substantial. In Orlando in 1966-67, the numbers of burglaries and rapes fell substantially after 2,500 women went through a well-publicized training program on the use of handguns.[2] In a survey taken of felons, 43 percent stated that the fact that a victim might be armed had caused themn to avoid particular homes or people.[3] There probably is no way to determine how many law-abiding citizens might turn to crime if it were a less dangerous occupation.

A friend of mine, a gentle and honest man, once confided in me that he had stolen a car when he was a teenager. He and three friends had been walking down the street in the small town where he lived, noticed a car with keys in the ignition, hopped in and drove away. Their joyride ended when they were pulled over by the local constable. My friend said his act of thievery hurt his mother more than anything else he ever did, and he regretted it often. He was guilty of theft and knew it, but he said he wished that the car's owner hadn't left the keys. Even though a well-equipped criminal can break into a locked car in less than a minute, leaving cars unlocked with keys in the ignition greatly increases the number of thefts.

The lesson here is that if it is very convenient to commit a crime, more people will commit it. This is not to say that everyone is dishonest; it's just a basic law of human nature that people will choose the easy way over the hard way when confronted with a task. In the task of living, it is easier to take than to make. As Frederic Bastiat said, "...the very nature of man ... impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain."[4] Copyright laws are violated daily by otherwise honest people with access to photocopiers and tape recorders. The crime is so convenient and the victim is so distant, most people who commit copyright violations probably wouldn't consider themselves criminals.

Bastiat said, "When, then, does the plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor."[5] Gun ownership by civilians makes burglary and robbery very dangerous and often very painful. About one-half of all homes in the United States contain firearms.[6] Someone considering carrying out a burglary has no way of determining if the house he plans to enter has guns in it, so he avoids all occupied houses, benefiting those who don't own guns as well. People who don't own guns know implicitly that they benefit from private gun ownership. How many of them would put a sign in their yard that says: "The owners of this house will not defend it with armed force."

Jails are full of repeat offenders. That is evidence that punishment is not a strong enough deterrent for some people. The punishment served up by the criminal justice system usually occurs long after the crime, further attenuating any deterrence value it may have. But negative reinforcement, the condition provided by an armed homeowner at the time of an attempted crime, is an effective deterrent. Such immediate and life-threatening action makes crime a hazardous occupation, and if crime is made a dangerous way of life, the number of criminals will decline and society will be a safer place for all.

Restraining Government

Another positive externality, even less apparent, is the restraint that has been put on government action because of civilian gun ownership. What policies might have been put in place by federal, state, and local governments had civilian gun ownership been heavily restricted? In the many years since the founding of our nation, what rules might bureaucrats have written if they hadn't needed to worry about an armed revolt of the masses? What invasive policies might they have come up with to make enforcement of their laws easier?

There are thousands of laws in the United States that restrict gun ownership in one way or another. Restrictions include waiting periods, bans on concealed weapons, and bans on owning particular kinds of weapons such as handguns or military-style semi-automatics. Gun control advocates support these laws because they hope to eradicate negative externalities, but reducing gun ownership eliminates positive externalities as well. In fact, gun control laws probably cancel more positive than negative externalities, because law-abiding citizens are much more likely to obey the rules than are criminals.

The negative externalities of guns need to be decreased, but the best way to minimize them is to deal with them directly. Accidents can be reduced by educating owners about proper care and handling of firearms. Such training is being provided by nonprofit groups including the National Rifle Association, and at for-profit shooting ranges.

Criminal misuse of firearms can best be decreased by cutting the overall crime rate. Methods of reducing crime have been discussed by other authors, and include drug legalization, eliminating barriers to entry in the work force, and increasing educational opportunities.

Since we don't pay for positive externalities, we seldom think of their value. Indeed it would be a formidable task to measure the total value of the positive externalities of guns in private hands. However, even without that measurement, the knowledge of the existence of positive externalities should help us to understand why so many people consider the right to own firearms to be a priceless freedom.

1. Gary Kleck, "Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force, " _Social Problems_, February 1988, p. 4. 2. Ibid., p. 13. Rapes had decreased by 89 percent one year after the program. Burglaries dropped "substantially" as well. 3. Ibid., p. 12 4. Frederic Bastiat, _The Law_ (Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.: Foundation for Economic Education, 1950), p. 10. 5. Ibid., p. 10 6. Kleck, p. 1

Mr. Kell is a botanist studying for his Ph.D. in biology at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.

Typed from The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty, October 1991 (Vol. 41, No. 10), pages 374-376, by David Chesler. All typos are mine. There is a photo on the last page showing an older man apparently instructing or coaching a younger man in the use of what appears to be a target pistol, at what appears to be a camp or outdoor range. Both are wearing ear protectors and glasses. The caption reads "Nonprofit groups such as the National Rifle Association provide training in the handling of firearms." The acknowledgement is "Courtesy of the National Rifle Association."

The Freeman is the monthly publication of The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., Irvington-on-Hudson, NY 10533.

Copyright (c) 1991 by The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc. Printed in the U.S.A. Permission is granted to reprint any article in this issue except [two which are not the one above,] provided appropriate credit is given and two copies of the reprinted materials are sent to The Foundation.


HOW TO MAKE THEIR DAY

Here are a few things we all know about handguns: they are useless for self-defense; their owners are more likely to kill relatives than assailants; they tempt the law-abiding to violence. False, false, and false.

DON B. KATES JR. & PATRICIA TERRELL HARRIS

ADVOCATES of gun control generally represent the debate as one between cool, rational defenders of civil order and ignorant rednecks inspired by half-acknowledged prejudices. In fact social-science research is increasingly on the side of the "rednecks." And the arguments for banning guns are mostly myths.*

Myth #1: Most murderers are ordinary, law-abiding citizens, who kill a relative or acquaintance in a moment of anger only because a gun is available. In fact, every study of homicide shows the overwhelming majority of murderers are career criminals, people with lifelong histories of violence, sometimes irrational, sometimes acquisitive. The typical murderer has a prior criminal history averaging at least six years, with four major felony arrests. He also is likely to be a substance abuser with a record of traffic and/or gun accidents. Indeed, even people who accidentally kill with guns tend to have similar felony records and histories of substance abuse and auto accidents. In short, these are aberrant people characterized by a consistent indifference to human life (including their own).

Our present laws acknowledge this by banning gun ownership by ex-felons, juveniles, and the mentally impaired. These restrictions fail not because they are too narrow, but because they are inadequately enforced.

Myth #2: The public supports "gun control." Fifty per cent of American householders have guns, and 78 per cent of all Americans say in national surveys that they would use a gun for self-defense. Americans do support prudent controls on access to guns (e.g., by ex-felons), but groups advocating "gun control" want much broader prohibitions. For example, Handgun Control Inc. (HCI), which claims to support only moderate controls, considers moderate the gun-control laws in Washington, D.C. That city has effectively outlawed self-defense with guns. It prohibits handgun sales, and allows hunters to have rifles and shotguns only if kept unloaded and disassembled.

While Americans support gun registration in opinion polls, abstract endorsement becomes fanatical opposition when HCI and even more extreme supporters of registration avow (or are forced to admit) that it is only a first step toward their goal of confiscation. HCI-backed proposals to ban handgun sales and confiscate all handguns were rejected even in two of the most liberal states, California in 1982 and Massachusetts in 1976.

Myth #3: Gun owners are ignorant rednecks given to senseless violence. Studies consistently show that, on the average, gun owners are better educated and have more prestigious jobs than non-owners. To judge by their applications for permits to carry guns at all times, the following are (or were) gun owners: Eleanor Roosevelt, Joan Rivers, Dianne Feinstein, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Sid Caesar, John Lindsay, Robert Goulet, Leland DuPont, Arthur Godfrey, Michael Korda, Henry Cabot Lodge, Sammy Davis Jr., Lyman Bloomingdale, Donald Trump, John Foster Dulles, and John, Laurance, David, Winthrop, and Nelson Rockefeller.

An early academic analysis (still relied upon by gun-control advocates) that labeled gun owners "Violence prone" turns out to have been based on survey questions that addressed only willingness to come to the aid of crime victims. In other words, the analyst confused good citizenship with violence. Later surveys show that gun owners are less likely than non-owners to approve of police brutality, violence against dissenters, etc.

Myth #4: Protection against crime is the job of the police. Slogans like "To protect and serve" contribute to the false impression that the main function of the police is to protect individuals. But the U.S. has only five hundred thousand police officers; dividing that number by three shifts per day, and adjusting for vacation leave, desk duty, etc., leaves only about 75,000 police on patrol at any one time to protect 250 million Americans. Their numbers are wholly inadequate to provide individual protection to everyone.

Myth #5: The Second Amendment protects only the states' right to arm a militia. This interpretation appeared only in the twentieth century. Significantly, the two earliest commentaries on the Second Amendment, which were before Congress when it passed the Bill of Rights, described it as guaranteeing to the people "their right to keep and bear their private arms" (Tinch Coxe) and "their own arms" (Sam Adams) (emphasis added).

The Founders were well aware of Aristotle's dictum that free governments rest on free men armed, while basic to tyranny is "mistrust of the people; hence they deprive them of arms." To James Madison, author of the Second Amendment, "The advantage that the Americans have over every other nation is that they are armed."

The Founders put today's NRA mossbacks to shame. "One loves to possess arms," Thomas Jefferson wrote to George Washington on June 19, 1796. On another occasion, Jefferson wrote his 15-year-old nephew: "Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. [But the gun] gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Let your gun therefore be the companion of your walks."

Myth #6: Guns are not useful for self-defense. Advocates of gun control have been so certain of this that they have paid for several national surveys to prove it. Awkwardly, every study has shown the opposite: handguns are used more often in repelling crimes than in committing them. While handguns are used in about 581,000 crimes yearly, they are used to repel about 645,000 crimes.

A related argument is that handguns kill six (or even 42) times as many household members as burglars. This comparison is deceptive on several grounds. First, about half of shootings by one spouse or the other are defensive-killings of homicidal husbands by victimized wives. So it misleadingly characterizes many cases in which guns save innocent lives as gun murders.

Also, by focusing on homes the statistic excludes the numerous instances in which shopkeepers kill robbers. When the number of shopkeepers and abused wives who shoot criminals is counted, the figure for defensive killings increases by about 1,000 per cent.

HCI harps on fatal accidents and murders in the home without mentioning that the former are generally perpetrated by irresponsible aberrants and the latter overwhelmingly so. Disarming the more than 98 per cent of gun owners who are law-abiding and responsible will not disarm the 2 per cent of aberrants. Even if it did, lack of handguns would not prevent the killing of wives and children with other weapons (like the knife or the far deadlier shotgun).

Perhaps the most disingenuous ploy is to downplay suicides, which constitute the majority of household handgun deaths in the comparison. Even if we agree that stopping suicide is a legitimate use of state power, it is silly to argue that banning a single method would have a significant effect. The most obvious alternative, the long gun, is used in roughly 50 per cent of current gun suicides.

Myth #7: Resistance with a gun will get you injured or killed. According to gun-controllers, armed women frequently have their guns taken away and used against them. And so HCI advises submission: "The best way to keep you alive [is to] put up no defense-give them what they want or run." National victim data suggest otherwise. While victims resisting with knives, clubs, or bare hands are about twice as likely to be injured as those who submit (though far less likely to be raped or robbed), victims who resist with a gun are only half as likely to be injured as those who take HCI's advice. (We emphasize that a gun does not make resistance safe regardless of circumstances. Perhaps a person with the foresight to own a gun is more likely to have pondered in advance the question of when and how to resist.)

Myth #8: Other countries have reduced violence by banning guns. This claim cannot be true, since low European violence long preceded gun restriction.

Restrictive gun laws were largely pioneered, not in Europe, but in various high-violence American states, beginning in the late 1800s. The measures failed -- violence rates continued to rise -- and they were largely repealed after World War 1. European gun bans began at about the same time ours were being repealed. Moreover, they were a response not to ordinary crime (which was low), but to the political crime and unrest of the era. Even as gun control failed to curb ordinary violence in this country, so the European countries that banned guns in response to political crime have nevertheless suffered far more such crime than has America. Ironically, the only "gun control" in place when English crime fell from its appalling late-eighteenth-century high to its idyllic early-twentieth century low was that the police could not carry guns. The inevitable conclusion is that the determinants of violence are socioeconomic and cultural factors rather than the availability of any particular deadly instrument.

Moreover, the emphasis on changing gun laws is fundamentally diversionary. With prosecutors, judges, and prisons swamped by murderers, rapists, robbers, etc., the violence-prone know they risk very little real penalty for illegal possession of a gun. In the premier criminological study of gun-control enforcement, Bendis and Balkin conclude: "It is very possible that if gun laws do potentially reduce gun-related crime, the present laws are all that is needed if they are enforced. What good would stronger laws do when the courts have demonstrated that they will not enforce them?".

* Those interested in further exploring these issues should refer to the just-published definitive work, "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America" (1991) by Gary Kleck. See also, Kates, "The Value of Civilian Arms Possession as a Deterrent to Crime or Defense against Crime," in American Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. 18, #3 (1991).

Mr. Kates, a criminologist and constitutional lawyer, is the editor of Firearms and Violence: Issues of Public Policy and author of "Guns, Murders, and the Constitution," both available from the Pacific Research Institute. Miss Harris, a medical editor living in northern New Jersey, is a past contributor to Handgun Control Inc.


NATIONAL REVIEW, OCTOBER 21, 1991, Pages 30 to 32

Florida

Florida's first right to keep and bear arms case appears to be .i.Carlton v. State (1912);. The principal crime involved was first degree murder of a peace officer in St. Johns County, by three brothers named Carlton.90 Relative to the murder conviction the three brothers were appealing, the weapons violations would seem like a small matter, and perhaps for this reason, the Florida Supreme Court put relatively little effort into the discussion of this issue. The statute in question, General Statutes section 3262, originally adopted in 1901 and revised in 1906, appears to have been a general prohibition on carry of handguns, with exceptions for peace officers.91 What prompted this statute? We have the good fortune to have a completely honest statement of its original purpose, which was at considerable variance from the text itself. The Florida Supreme Court in 1941 refused to find that a pistol in an automobile glove compartment was "carrying" within the meaning of the statute. A concurring opinion by Justice Buford asserted:

I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in the turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied.92

No more damning statement can be imagined as to the purpose of the Florida law. It also fits well with our hypothesis about the nominally color-blind laws of the .i.Reconstruction; period. ____________________ 90 Carlton v. State, 63 Fla. 1, 58 So. 486 (1912). 91 Carlton v. State, 63 Fla. 1, 58 So. 486, 488 (1912). 92 Watson v. Stone, 4 So.2d 700, 703 (Fla. 1941), quoted in Cottrol and Diamond, 355.


"...a huge proportion of law enforcement personnel who are injured with firearms are shot with their own weapons -- 22 out of 43, or more than 50 percent, last year in New York City, according to police records."
-- New York Times, "Chop! Kick! Police Seek Martial Art as Defense", March 6, 1992, p. A14.
How common is firearms ownership? [1]

Large cities: 31% Rural areas and small towns: 72%

What are their robbery and murder rates? [2]

Population group Robbery Murder Cities, over 250,000 850.2 25.6 Cities, 10,000-24,999 86.3 4.1 Cities, under 10,000 49.4 3.7 Rural counties 15.8 5.7

It would help the gun-control movement considerably if Cook's observed association between gun ownership rates and gun crime rates extended to overall violent crime rates. But it doesn't.

[1] 'Guns in America: Who Owns Them' from a New York Time / CBS NEWS Poll, run as a sidebar to 'The Gun Culture...' New York Times, March 9, 1992. "Do you or any other member of your household own a handgun, rifle, shotgun or any other kind of firearm?" Based on a survey of 1281 adults nationwide conducted by telephone Jan. 22-25.

[2] 1990 annual rates per 100,000 population, as listed in the FBI UCR.


These are the various requests for a Bill of Rights made by the state conventions responsible for ratifying the U.S. Constitution. Use them on your favorite Congresscritters.

Amendments proposed by the New Hampshire Convention, June 21, 1788:

Twelfth

Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.

[_Documentary_History_of_the_First_Federal_Congress_1789- 1791_, Vol. IV, (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore: 1986), p. 15]

Amendments proposed by the Virginia Convention, June 27, 1788:

Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.

[_Documentary_History_of_the_First_Federal_Congress_1789-1791_, Vol. IV, p. 17]

Amendments proposed by the New York Convention, July 26, 1788:

That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People *capable of bearing arms*, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; [emphasis in the original]

[_Documentary_History_of_the_First_Federal_Congress_1789-1791_, Vol. IV, p. 20]


GUN STATISTICS & MORTAL RISKS, by Preston K. Covey

Erik Larson's even-handed article on Paxton Quigley ("Armed Force," 2/4/93, WSJ) cites the world's most notorious 'statistic' regarding guns in the home: "A pioneering study of residential gunshot deaths in King County, Washington, found that a gun in the home was 43 times more likely to be used to kill its owner, spouse, a friend or child than to kill an intruder." The "43 times" stat is everywhere these days; it has grown in media lore like the proverbial urban myth: it was inflated by one pugilistic talk-show pundit to "93." Given the shock value of the finding, the conclusion of the 1986 New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) study is remarkably understated: "The advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection must be questioned."

Responsible people should indeed question the risks and benefits of bringing a firearm into their home. But what we need to know is this: What exactly are the risks and benefits? The NEJM testimony is neither the whole truth about the benefits nor nothing but the truth about the risks. Further, as with motor vehicles, we want to know: What control do we have over the risks and benefits? And, as with the risks of cancer or heart disease or auto accidents: How can we minimize the risks? Like raw highway death tolls, the NEJM stat is not very helpful here.

The NEJM finding purports to inform us, but it is framed to warn us off. It is widely promulgated in the media as a 'scare stat,' a misleading half-truth whose very formulation is calculated to prejudice and terrify. The frightful statistic screams for itself: The risks far outweigh the benefits, yes? What fool would run these risks? If your car were 43 times more likely to kill you, a loved one, a dear friend or an innocent child than to get you to your destination, should you not take the bus?

Uncritical citation puts the good name of statistics in the bad company of lies and damned lies. Surely, we can do better where lives are at stake. Let's take a closer look at this risky business:

The "43 times" stat of the NEJM study is the product of dividing the number of home intruders/aggressors justifiably killed in self-defense (the divisor) into the number of family members or acquaintances killed by a gun in the home (the dividend). The divisor of this risk equation is 9: in the study's five-year sample there were 2 intruders and 7 other cases of self-defense. The dividend is 387: in the study there were 12 accidental deaths, 42 criminal homicides, and 333 suicides. 387 divided by 9 yields 43. There were a total of 743 gun-related deaths in King County between 1978 and 1983, so the study leaves 347 deaths outside of homes unaccounted.

The NEJM's notorious "43 times" statistic is seriously misleading on six counts:

1. The dividend is misleadingly characterized in the media: the "or acquaintances" of the study (who include your friendly drug dealers and neighborhood gang members) is equated to "friends." The implication is that the offending guns target and kill only beloved family members, dear friends, and innocent children. Deaths may all be equally tragic, but the character and circumstance of both victims and killers are relevant to the risk. These crucial risk factors are masked by the calculated impression that the death toll is generated by witless Waltons shooting dear friends and friendly neighbors. This is criminological hogwash.

2. The study itself does not distinguish households or environs populated by people with violent, criminal, or substance-abuse histories -- where the risk of death is very high -- versus households inhabited by more civil folk (for example, people who avoid high-risk activities like drug dealing, gang banging and wife beating) -- where the risk is very low indeed. In actuality, negligent adults allow fatal but avoidable accidents; and homicides are perpetrated mostly by people with histories of violence or abuse, people who are identifiably and certifiably at 'high risk' for misadventure. To ignore these obvious risk factors in firearm accidents and homicides is as misleading as ignoring the role of alcohol in vehicular deaths: by tautology, neither gun deaths nor vehicular deaths would occur without firearms or vehicles; but the person and circumstance of the gun owner or driver crucially affect the risk.

3. One misleading implication of the way the NEJM stat is framed is that the mere presence of a gun in the home is much more likely to kill than to protect, and this obscures -- indeed, disregards -- the role of personal responsibility. The typical quotation of this study (unlike Larson's) attributes fatal agency to the gun: "A gun in the home is 43 times as likely to kill . . . ." (The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, a major promulgator of the NEJM statistic, uses this particular formulation.) We can dispense with the silly debate about whether it's people or guns that accomplish the killing: again, by tautology, gun deaths would not occur without the guns. The question begged is how many deaths would occur anyway, without the guns. In any case, people are the death-dealing agents, the guns are their lethal instruments. The moral core of the personal risk factors in gun deaths are personal responsibility and choice. Due care and responsibility obviate gun accidents; human choice mediates homicide and suicide (by gun or otherwise). The choice to own a gun need not condemn a person to NEJM's high-risk pool. The gun does not create this risk by itself. People have a lot to say about what risk they run with guns in their homes. For example, graduates of Paxton Quigley's personal protection course do not run the touted "43 times" risk any more than skilled and sober drivers run the same risks of causing or suffering vehicular death as do reckless or drunk drivers. Undiscriminating actuarials disregard and obscure the role of personal responsibility and choice, just as they disregard and obscure the role of socio-economic, criminological and other risk-relevant factors in firearm-related death. This is why we resent insurance premiums and actuarial consigment to risk pools whose norms disregard our individualities. Fortunately, nothing can consign us to the NEJM risk pool but our own lack of choice or responsibility in the matter.

4. Suicide accounts for 84% of the deaths by gun in the home in the NEJM study. As against the total deaths by gun in King County, including those outside the home, in-house suicides are 44% of the total death toll, which is closer to the roughly 50% proportion found by other studies. Suicide is a social problem of a very different order from homicide or accidents. The implication of the NEJM study is that these suicides might not occur without readily available guns. It is true that attempted suicide by gun is likely to succeed. It is not obviously true that the absence of a gun would prevent any or all of these suicides. This is widely assumed or alleged, but the preponderance of research on guns and suicide actually shows otherwise, that this is wishful thinking in all but a few truly impulsive cases. (See: Bruce L. Danto et al., The Human Side of Homicide, Columbia University Press, 1982; Charles Rich et al., "Guns and Suicide," American Journal of Psychiatry, March 1990.) If suicides were removed from the dividend of the NEJM study's risk equation, the "43 times" stat would deflate to "six." The inclusion of suicides in the NEJM risk equation -- like the causes, durability, or interdiction of suicidal intent itself -- is a profoundly debatable matter. Quotations of the NEJM study totally disregard this issue.

5. Citations of the NEJM study also mislead regarding the estimable rate of justifiable and excusable homicide. Most measures, like the NEJM homicide rate, are based on the immediate disposition of cases. But many homicides initially ruled criminal are appealed and later ruled self-defense. In the literature on battered women, immediate case dispositions are notorious for under-representing the rate of justifiable or excusable homicide. Time's January 18, 1993, cover story on women "Fighting Back" reported one study's finding that 40% of women who appeal have their murder convictions thrown out. Time's July 17, 1989, cover story on a week of gun deaths reported 51% of the domestic cases as shootings by abuse victims; but only 3% of the homicides were reported as self-defense. In a May 14, 1990, update, Time reported that 12% of the homicides had eventually been ruled self-defense. In Time's sample, the originally reported rate of self-defense was in error by a factor of four. The possibility of such error is not acknowledged by promulgators of the NEJM statistic.

6. While both the dividend and the product of the NEJM risk equation are arguably inflated, the divisor is unconscionably misleading. The divisor of this equation counts only aggressors who are killed, not aggressors who are successfully thwarted without being killed or even shot at. The utility of armed self-defense is the other side of the coin from the harms done with guns in homes. What kind of moral idiocy is it to measure this utility only in terms of killings? Do we measure the utility of our police solely in terms of felons killed -- as opposed to the many many more who are otherwise foiled, apprehended, or deterred? Should we not celebrate (let alone count ) those cases where no human life is lost as successful armed defenses? The question posed to media that cite the NEJM scare stat is this: Why neglect the compendious research on successful armed defense, notably by criminologist Gary Kleck (Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, Aldine de Gruyter, 1992)? Kleck's estimations of the rate and risk of defensive firearm use are based on victimization surveys as well as other studies: the rate is high (about one million a year) and the risk is good (gun defenders fare better than anyone, either those who resort to other forms of resistance or those who do not resist). Dividing one million gun defenses a year by 30,000 annual gun deaths (from self-defense, homicides, suicides, and accidents) yields 33. Thus, we can construct a much more favorable statistic than the NEJM scare stat:

A gun is 33 times more likely to be used to defend against assault or other crime than to kill anybody.

Of course, Kleck's critics belittle the dividend of this calculation; what is good news for gun defenders is bad news for gun control. We should indeed question the basis and method of Kleck's high estimation of defensive firearm use, as I have questioned the NEJM statistic. Clearly, the issue of how to manage mortal risks is not settled by uncritical citation of statistics. One thing troubles me still: we can hardly escape the unquestioned NEJM scare stat in our media, but we hardly ever find Kleck's good work mentioned, even critically.


> You might point out that, at the time the amendment was written, "militia" > as understood to be "all able-bodied white males" per the Militia Act of > 1794 (or 179-something). You did not have to be part of a regular military

Militia Act of 1792. It include all free white males between 18 and 45. Annals of Congress, 2d Congress, around page 1806.

> unit. It was just the case that, should the need arise for common defense, > all the men would take their guns and come running. You might look up the > Militia Act. > > Also, point out the reasoning from the Federalist Papers regarding an > armed citizenry being necessary to prevent the govt from getting any > funny ideas about implimenting despotism. I'm sure there were plenty > of Germans in the 1930's who didn't like what Hitler was doing, but without > an armed citizenry, there's not much they could do about it. >

The following section from my upcoming book may be of some value. I've got more goodies in it, but I have brought those to work yet:

FOR THE DEFENSE OF THEMSELVES AND THE STATE:
LEGAL CASE STUDIES OF THE 2nd AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION
by Clayton E. Cramer; Wakefield, NH; Hollowbrook Pub. (1992); ISBN: 0-89341-723-8

Who Are The Militia?

For a contemporary definition of militia, we can look to the Virginia constitution ratification convention:

Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to militia duty. Under such a full and equal representation as ours, there can be no ignominious punishment inflicted.[14]

Earlier during the Virginia debates, Mason had warned:

An instance within the memory of some of this house will show us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.[15]

Francis Corbin, arguing for the Constitution, held that the concerns about standing armies were overstated:

The honorable gentleman then urges an objection respecting the militia, who, he tells us, will be made the instrument of tyranny to deprive us of our liberty. Your militia, says he, will fight against you. Who are the militia? Are we not militia? Shall we fight ourselves? No, sir; the idea is absurd. We are also terrified by the dread of a standing army. It cannot be denied that we ought to have the means of defence, and be able to repel an attack.[16]

The following exchange at the Virginia ratifying convention demonstrates that "militia" was recognized as constituting the whole people:

Mr. CLAY wished to be informed why the Congress were to have power to provide for calling forth the militia, to put the laws of the Union into execution.

Mr. MADISON supposed the reasons of this power to be so obvious that they would occur to most gentlemen. If resistance should be made to the execution of the laws, he said, it ought to be overcome. This could be done only in two ways -- either by regular forces or by the people. By one or the other it must unquestionably be done. If insurrections should arise, or invasions should take place, the people ought unquestionably to be employed, to suppress and repel them, rather than a standing army. The best way to do these things was to put the militia on a good and sure footing, and enable the government to make use of their services when necessary.

Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, unless there be some restrictions on the power of calling forth the militia, to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions, we may very easily see that it will produce dreadful oppressions. It is extremely unsafe, without some alterations. It would be to use the militia to a very bad purpose, if any disturbance happened in New Hampshire, to call them from Georgia. This would harass the people so much that they would agree to abolish the use of the militia, and establish a standing army.[17]

Gov. Randolph argued before the Virginia ratifying convention:

In order to provide for our defence, and exclude the dangers of a standing army, the general defence is left to those who are the objects of defence. It is left to the militia, who will suffer if they become the instruments of tyranny.[18]

Alexander Contee Hanson, a member of the Maryland State Convention, also discussed the meaning of "militia". In his pamphlet in support of ratification of the Constitution, he argued that the concerns about standing armies were excessive, and that such standing armies were unavoidable. He concludes that the concerns are "a mere pretext for terrifying you", and that:

It may well be material here to remark, that although a well regulated militia has ever been considered as the true defense of a free republic, there are always honest purposes, which are not to be answered by a militia. If they were, the burthen of the militia would be so great, that a free people would, by no means, be willing to sustain it. If indeed it be possible in the nature of things, that congress shall, at any future period, alarm us by an improper augmentation of troops, could we not, in that case, depend on the militia, which is ourselves.[19]

A committee of the Maryland ratifying convention proposed ratification of the Constitution with a list of amendments, one of which is relevant to the Second Amendment.[20] Among these provisions:

13. That the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except in time of war, invasion, or rebellion.[21]

In explaining why this amendment was considered so important, the official journal of the convention argued:

This provision to restrain the powers of Congress over the militia, although by no means so ample as that provided by Magna Charta, and the other great fundamental and constitutional laws of Great Britain, (it being contrary to Magna Charta to punish a freeman by martial law, in time of peace, and murder to execute him,) yet it may prove an inestimable check; for all other provisions in favor of the rights of men would be vain and nugatory, if the power of subjecting all men, able to bear arms, to martial law at any moment should remain vested in Congress.[22]

The ratifying convention refused the full list of proposed amendments. In response, the committee requested the convention to ratify the Constitution with what it considered the most important three amendments. The committee explained further its concern:

The first of these objections, concerning the militia, they considered as essential; for, to march beyond the limits of a neighboring state the general militia, which consists of so many poor people that can illy be spared from their families and domestic concerns, by power of Congress, (who could know nothing of their circumstances,) without consent of their own legislature or executive, ought to be restrained.[23]

The militia, then, was the same as the adult freemen of Maryland.

Tench Coxe of Pennsylvania was a member of the Annapolis Convention and Continental Congress. His letters were among the first to appear in favor of ratification of the Constitution, and were widely reprinted in newspapers of the day.[24] Coxe admitted:

The apprehensions of the people have been excited, perhaps by persons with good intentions, about the powers of the new government to raise an army.[25]

After stating that the Constitution contained adequate restrictions on the funding and control of standing armies, Coxe argued that:

The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them -- for our detached situation will seldom give occasion to raise an army, though a few scattered companies may often be necessary.[26]

Richard Henry Lee was appointed to the Constitutional Convention, but declined to serve. His pamphlet against ratification of the Constitution were "one of the most popular" of the time.[27] His concerns about standing armies and the national government's authority to regulate state militias provide both insights into the importance of private arms in restraining national power, and the identity of the people as the militia. In discussing the danger that Congress might not represent the interests of the common people in the levying of taxes and raising of standing armies, Lee admits:

It is true, the yeomanry of the country possess the lands, the weight of property, possess arms, and are too strong a body of men to be openly offended -- and, therefore, it is urged, they will take care of themselves, that men who shall govern will not dare pay any disrespect to their opinions.28

But recognizing that slow change is frequently capable of lulling the population to sleep in a way that radical change will not:

It is easily perceived, that if they have their proper negative upon passing laws in congress, or on the passage of laws relative to taxes and armies, they may in twenty or thirty years be by means imperceptible to them, totally deprived of that boasted weight and strength: This may be done in a great measure by congress, if disposed to do it, by modelling the militia. Should one fifth or one eighth part of the men capable of bearing arms, be made a select militia, as has been proposed, and those the young and ardent part of the community, possessed of but little or no property, and all the others put upon a plan that will render them of no importance, the former will answer all the purposes of an army, while the latter will be defenceless.[29]

Further evidence of the identity of the militia as "the people", and not just a small part of the population, can be found in James Madison's Federalist 46. Madison sought to alleviate concerns about Federal power. To that end, he pointed out that:

The only refuge left for those who prophecy the downfall of the State Governments, is the visionary supposition that the Federal Government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition...[30]

Madison asserts the political unlikeliness of such an event, but:

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the Federal Government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State Governments with the people on their side would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield in the United States an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.[31]

This is a clear statement that the "militia" was not a small professional military, but the entire male population of the country, "with arms in their hands". There is other contemporaneous evidence that the Founding Fathers considered the militia to be equivalent to, if not, "the people", at least a very large part of the people. The Militia Act of 1792 declared the:

"militia of the United States" to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. This statute, incidentally remained in effect into the early years of the present century as a legal requirement of gun ownership for most of the population of the United States.[32]

The same Congress that debated the Bill of Rights, also debated HR-102, the Militia Bill which became, in the Second Congress, the Militia Act of 1792. Its language clearly shows:

That the militia of the United States shall consist of each and every free, able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who are or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is hereinafter excepted) who shall severally and respectively be enrolled by the captain or commanding officer of the company within whose bounds such citizens shall reside... That every citizen so enrolled and notified shall within _____ month_ thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock of a bore not smaller than seventeen balls to the pound, a sufficient bayonet and belt, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball, two spare flints, and a knapsack, and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service as is herein after directed...[33] [Look this up in Annals of Congress]

Debate on the Militia Bill, on December 22, 1790, involved discussion of whether the Congress should define what persons would be exempted from militia duty, or the state legislatures should do so. As part of that debate, Rep. Williamson observed:

When we departed from the straight line of duty marked out for us by the first principles of the social compact, we found ourselves involved in difficulty. The burden of the militia duty lies equally upon all persons; and when we contemplate a departure from this principle, by making exemptions, it involves us in our present embarrassment.[34] [emphasis added]

Rep. Randolph, in arguing for a reduction of the standing army on January 5, 1800, emphasized that standing armies were not only "useless and enormous expense", but contrary to the spirit of the Constitution:

A people who mean to continue free must be prepared to meet danger in person, not to rely upon the fallacious protection of mercenary armies.[35]

Current U.S. law still recognizes this organic relationship between the people and the militia:

311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intent to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are --

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.[36]

Indeed, the current National Guard was organized under Congress' power to "raise and support armies", and not under the "organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia" provision, since the militia "can be called forth only 'to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.'"[37]

More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990) explicitly recognized that "the people" referred to in the Second Amendment has the same meaning as it does in the rest of the Bill of Rights:

Contrary to the suggestion of amici curiae that the Framers used this phrase "simply to avoid [an] awkward rhetorical redundancy," ... "the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the People of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1, ("Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble"); Art. I, - 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.[38]

Federalists and Antifederalists debating the Constitution in state ratifying conventions, the Militia Act of 1792, current federal and state laws, all agree that the militia was not a standing army, not a "select militia" like the National Guard, but the adult free male citizens of the country.

REFERENCES:
14 Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, (New York, Burt Franklin: 1888), 3:425-426.
15 Elliot, 3:380.
16 Elliot, 3:112-113.
17 Elliot, 3:378.
18 Elliot, 3:401.
19 Alexander Contee Hanson, Remarks on the Proposed Plan of a Federal Government, 21, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets On The Constitution of the United States, (Brooklyn, NY: 1888), 234-235.
20 Elliot, 2:549.
21 Elliot, 2:552.
22 Elliot, 2:552.
23 Elliot, 2:554.
24 Paul Ford, 133.
25 Tench Coxe, An Examination of the Constitution for the United States of America, 20-21, in Paul Ford, 150-151.
26 Ibid., 21.
27 Paul Ford, 277.
28 Richard Henry Lee, Letters of a Federal Farmer, 25, in Paul Ford, 305.
29 Ibid.
30 Jacob E. Cooke, ed., The Federalist, (Middletown, CT, Wesleyan University Press: 1961), 320.
31 Ibid., 321.
32 Senate Subcommittee on The Constitution Staff, "History: Second Amendment Right To 'Keep and Bear Arms'", 7.
33 Bickford & Veit, 5:1460-1462. Attempts to find the original Militia Act of 1792 as passed by Congress, were fruitless. [I've since found it -- this is old text.]
34 Elliot, 4:423.
35 Elliot, 4:411-412.
36 10 USC -311. Similar provisions exist in many state codes -- see California Military & Veterans Code, sec. 120-123.
37 Senate Subcommittee on The Constitution Staff, "History: Second Amendment Right To 'Keep and Bear Arms'", 11.
38 110 U.S. 1060-1061.


You might try and get the following book, if you can find a copy:

FOR THE DEFENSE OF THEMSELVES AND THE STATE:
LEGAL CASE STUDIES OF THE 2nd AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION
by Clayton E. Cramer; Wakefield, NH
Hollowbrook Pub. (1992); ISBN: 0-89341-723-8

A good introduction to background on gun control (why it doesn't work, numbers, etc.) is David B. Kopel's "Hold Your Fire" in the Winter 1993 issue of _Policy Review_ magizine (your campus library should have it). More complete information is in Gary Kleck's 1991 book _Point Blank_.

Kleck, a lifelong liberal Democrat and former supporter of waiting periods, gives a thorough statistical analysis. He became well known in right to keep and bear arms circles for his study "Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force," published in the socialogical journal _Social Problems_, volume 35 (1988), pp. 1-21. Kleck used data from various surveys and from official Department of Justice statistics to estimate the frequency with which crime is stopped by armed citizens. The most comprehensive survey he looked at was conducted by Democratic polling firm Peter Hart and Assoc. on behalf of the pro-gun control National Association Against Violence.

Kleck used the data from (among other places) the Hart poll to estimate that hand guns are used to stop a crime an average of 645,000 times per year. Moreover, all guns (hand guns, rifles, shotguns combined) are used to stop roughly 1 million crimes per year. (I'd use the 645,000 number, though: most control efforts are directed toward hand guns, and people make idle claims like "concealable weapons are only useful for committing crimes.)

Initially, one might compare this with the frequence of violent crime in which a gun was used. From the U. S. Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Survey (1987), you will find that there were a total of 541,271 violent crimes committed with a hand gun in 1985, and 657,119 violent crimes committed with any gun during 1985. Thus, either way, we see more civilian defenses with hand guns and guns in general than crimes committed with a hand gun or with any gun.

This comparison, of course, has its limits. For one thing, we don't know how gun control would affect the frequency of defenses and crimes. For some insight, consider the 1986 National Institute of Justice study by James Wright and Peter Rossi. Before doing this and a related NIJ study, sociologist Wright was on record as favoring stricter controls; Rossi's credentials are certainly legitimate: he has served as president of the American Sociological Association. Wright and Rossi interviewed convicted felons in 10 state correctional systems in 1981, and found that the presence and scope of gun control laws had no effect on criminals' ability to obtain firearms. (Of course, convicted felons cannot, after release, legally obtain a gun; they lose this right, along with the right to vote and various others, and can only have these restored if they sue and a judge finds in their favor. So, stricter controls could not be placed on convicts, seeing as they're not allowed to possess a firearm anyway.) Wright and Rossi found that criminals convicted of a gun-related crime did not expect to have any difficulty obtaining a firearm the day after release from prison. Moreover, 83% of convicted gun predators said that, if they somehow could be stopped from stealing a gun, buying through a legal surrogate, getting one on the black market, borrowing a gun, etc., they would switch to long guns or sawed-off long guns. As these are more lethal than hand guns, long guns being used in more crimes would likely increase the rates of fatalities.

Kleck's 1991 book (cited above) does a probit regression analysis (i.e., a regression where what the researcher wants to predict is the probability an event occurs) to estimate the likelihood an attack takes place during a crime, that an injury occurs given an attack, and that death results given injury, in order to judge whether the offender's possessing a firearm makes victim death more likely. He found that, overall, the lack of available hand guns would drop deaths by 1.4%; however, this (he points out) ignores that the unavailability of firearms would reduce the number of crimes foiled by armed citizens. Moreover, if the handguns were replaced by long guns, Kleck's estimates imply that the number of deaths due to violent crime would increase by 18.1%.

What affect would the gun control have on crimes foiled by armed citizens? An experiment was tried in Orlando, Florida, from Oct 1966 to Mar 1967, in which the Orlando Police Department trained over 2500 women to use hand guns. Details of the study are in Alan Krug, "The relationship between firearms ownership and crime rates," _Congressional Record_ (1968), pp. H570-2. A follow-up study was published by Kleck and Bourda (1983), in _Law and Politics Quarterly_, vol. 5, pp. 271-98. The highlights: an uninterrupted time series of Orlando crime trends shows that the rape rate dropped 88% in 1967 from the 1966 level, a far greater decrease than for any previous year. The rape rate was constant in the rest of Florida and in the U. S. The only other crime to drop substantially was burglary. Thus, the targeted crime and the one most likely to occur where victims have access to guns dropped.

Pro gun control forces frequently cite one of several New England Journal of Medicine studies, claiming that the chances of being killed with a firearm are anywhere from 5 to 43 times higher than those of killing a burglar (among gun owners). The 43 number includes gun suicides; no reputable study has shown that decreasing gun availability has any affect on the suicide rate. (It does affect the gun suicide rate, but other suicide rates increase.) Moreover, in below 1/2% of all civilian defenses is the offender actually killed; hence, even if the 1/43 number were the accurate ratio, it would have to be multiplied by roughly 200 to compensate for the fact that it only considers burglars killed, not crimes stopped. This alone would suggest that owning a firearm is quite useful for personal defense, but there's more. None of the New England Journal of Medicine studies restricted attention to injuries due to one's own firearm. Thus, if criminals are harder to disarm than the law abiding (a reasonable assumption if one believes that criminals don't obey laws), it is incorrect to compare my rate of killing a burglar with my firearm with my rate of being killed by a burglar with his: the point of the studies was to assess whether a gun is useful for home defense, so it should compare the likelihood of my being injured with my firearm versus that of my stopping an injury to me using my firearm. Also, the New England Jornal of Medicine studies did not include any firearm defenses against any crime other than robbery; by contrast, they all counted against firearms any homicides committed in any setting.

Oh, yes. One more thing. FBI data suggest that the ratio of self-defense homicides to criminal homicides in Detroit and Dade (Miami, Fl) conties is roughly .14. If one takes this to be a national average (on an argument that the cities are geographically distinct but had similar numbers), one gets an estimate of roughly 2800 civilian legal defensive homicides per year with a gun, and 300 with some other weapon (based on 1980 U.S. National Crime and Health Statistics), versus 368 reported police legal-intervention gun homicides and 14 police legal-intervention nongun homicides. By the way, one of the New England Journal of Medicine studies (Kellerman and Reay, 1986) gives a ratio of .22 for Seattle for 1978-83, suggesting an even higher number of criminals killed in self-defense by armed citizens compared with the number killed by police.

What about other crimes? The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Survey for 1979-85 gives the following numbers of completion of robberies when the victim used various methods of self-protection:

Method     % completed     % attacked     % injured
------     -----------     ----------     ---------
gun             30.9            25.2           17.4
knife           35.2            55.6           40.3
other weapon    28.9            41.5           22.0
physical force  50.1            75.6           50.8
called 911      63.9            73.5           48.9
reasoned w/
 offender       53.7            48.1           30.7
evasion         50.8            54.7           34.9
compliance      88.5            41.5           24.7

So, defending oneself against a robber with a gun reduced the chance of injury by 26% over using a nongun weapon other than a knife (the next best option). Compared with compliance, one's chance of avoiding injury by defending with a gun was 42% better. The margin of error for these numbers is extremely low; the case with the fewest realizations was defense with a knife, and even for that, there were 59,813 cases covered. Thus, these numbers are significant with as high a level of confidence as one likes.

The National Crime Survey gives similar numbers for assaults, though those are even more dramatic. One who defended oneself against an assault with a gun had a 23.2% chance of being attacked and a 12.1% chance of being injured. The next best choice for avoiding injury was reasoning with the offendor, which led to a 40.0% chance of attack and a 24.7% chance of injury. Using another weapon (nongun, non-knife) led to a 41.4% attack rate and a 25.1% injury rate. Knives led to a 46.4% attack rate and 29.5% injury rate. Compliance led to a 39.9% attack rate (the lowest except for defense with a gun) and a 27.3% injury rate.

One other topic is likely to come up, and you should be careful in how you reply. Not long ago (within the past 5 years), there was a study (I believe the New England Journal of Medicine or Journal of the American Medical Assoc) which compared the homicide rates in Seattle with those in Vancouver, and claimed that the lower rates in Vancouver were evidence for success of Canadian gun control. Two problems: (1) The study did not adjust for demographics. Seattle has a large, disaffected Hispanic community, whose homicide rate is considerably higher than that for the rest of Seattle. When adjustment is made for this, and for the demographic composition of Vancouver, the homicide rates become very close (I think Seattle's actually becomes lower). This is a point that, though valid, I would hesitate to make, as it would be easy for a critic to misconstrue. That is, while no one would maintain that ethnicity causes homicide, one might argue that ethnic strife is often associated with higher homicide rates. Nevertheless, a dishonest opponent would try to depict one who raised this point as a bigot. Hence, I offer point (2): Canada's homicide rate has increased since its radical gun control law was passed in 1978, and has climbed more rapidly than the U.S. rate. If one compares the ratio of homicides in Vancouver and Seattle prior to 1978, one gets (if memory serves) a much more dramatic disparity than the post-control study that is often cited. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the disparity is due to the Canadian gun control law.

Someone might try to make other international comparisons: Japan and England are favorites of the pro-control forces. The comparisons are worthless. First, you could always counter with information comparisons with Israel and Switzerland (high gun ownership, low crime) or Mexico (low gun ownership, high crime). Second, you might point out that differences in crime rates are attributable to our revolving-door justice. E.g., in London, 20% of reported robberies end in conviction; in New York City, fewer than 5% do. Moreover, England has twice as many firearms homicides annually as it did before it adopted its tough anti-gun laws.

One way to make some corrected comparisons with Japan (adjusting for judicial system, cultural differences, etc.) might be to compare homicide rates among Japanese Americans, who have widespread access to guns because they live here, but maintain much of their Japanese culture. Through 1979, the FBI tracked homicide arrests by race, and included a category for "Japanese." Applying the fraction of Japanese American arrests to the total number of homicides during 1976-78, Kleck (in Point Blank, pp. 189 ff.) estimates a homicide rate for Japanese Americans of 1.04 per 100,000 persons. By contrast, the homicide rate in Japan for the same period was 2.45 per 100,000, or 2.3 times higher.

Some notes about Britain. Though the British have a much lower gun homicide rate than we have, they also have a much lower knife homicide rate and a lower rate of homicide using hands and feet. Are we to infer, then, that the British ahve fewer knives or hands and feet than Americans?

By the way, the leading study of English gun control was done by Colin Greenwood (_Firearms Control: A Study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and Wales_. London: Routledge, 1972.). Greenwood compiled tables on gun crime rates and gun ownership rates in all 47 English police force areas, as of 1969. He found that "the rate of armed crime is in no way connected with the density of firearms in the community. Indeed, if anything, the reverse appears to be true" (p. 219). Kleck analyzes Greenwood's data, and finds that the legal gun owner rate had a correlation of -0.17 with both offenses involving firearms in general and robberies involving firearms. Moreover, the differences cannot be attributed to higher concentration of firearms in rural areas alone.


"What the subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear - and long lost - proof that the Second Amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms."
--Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution - Preface, "The Right To Keep And Bear Arms"
"If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of criminal acts reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying--that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976--establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime."
--Repub. Sen. Orrin Hatch, 1982 Senate Report
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."
--John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty" 1859
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
--William Rawle, 1825; considered academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington.
"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force, like fire a dangerous servant and a terrible master."
--George Washington
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." - [This was Madison's original proposal for the "Second Amendment"
--James Madison, I Annuals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).

"It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it."
--James Madison "Federalist No. 46"

"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace." -- James Madison, The Federalist Papers (No. 46).

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244


"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American .. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
--Tench Coxe - 1788.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, ... the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear arms."
--Tench Coxe in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution", Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789


"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined."
--Patrick Henry, speaking to the Virginia convention for the ratification of the constitution on the necessity of the right to keep and bear arms.

"They tell us, Sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power."

"Three millions of People, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Beside, Sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of Nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us." --

"The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, Sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable; and let it come! I repeat, Sir, let it come!"

"It is in vain, Sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace! -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the North will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that Gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
--Patrick Henry (1736-1799) in his famous "The War Inevitable" speech, March, 1775


"The constitutions of most of our states [and of the United States] assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press."
--Thomas Jefferson

"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
--Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural, 4-Mar-1801

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
--Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939.

"Enlighten people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day."
--Thomas Jefferson

"The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time."
--Thomas Jefferson (1774)

"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government.
--Thomas Jefferson, June 1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walk."
--Encyclopedia of Thomas Jefferson, 318 (Foley, Ed., reissued 1967)


"...for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
--Alexander Hamilton

"The best that we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
--Alexander Hamilton (The Federalist Papers at 184-8)


"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense..."
--John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).

"Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will be America's heart, her benedictions and prayers, but she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator of her own."
--John Quincy Adams, 1821.


"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent *the people* of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ..."
--Samuel Adams in arguing for a Bill of Rights, from the book "Massachusetts," published by Pierce & Hale, Boston, 1850, pg. 86-87.
"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."
[Contrast the above with U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein's statement: "Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe" as reported on 18 November, 1993, by the Associated Press.]

"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, .. [T]he Constitution ought to secure a genuine [militia] and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include ... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
--Richard Henry Lee writing in "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788, page 169.


"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

"This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the maladministration of the Government, if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the Constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
--Rep. Eldridge Gerry of Massachusetts (spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}]) 17, 1789)


[The American Colonies are] "all democratic governments, where the power is in the hands of the people and where there is not the least difficulty or jealousy about putting arms into the hands of every man in the country. [European countries should not] be ignorant of the strength and the force of such a form of government and how strenuously and almost wonderfully people living under one have sometimes exerted themselves in defence of their rights and liberties and how fatally it has ended with many a man and many a state who have entered into quarrels, wars and contests with them."
--George Mason from "Remarks on Annual Elections for the Fairfax Independent Company" quoted from The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792 edited by Robert A. Rutland [Chapel Hill, 1970]

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies in time of peace should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
--George Mason, Article 13 of The Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776.

George Mason, Framer of the Declaration of Rights, Virginia, 1776, which became the basis for the U.S. Bill of Rights, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them..." (Also see "Debates" at 380.)
[Contrast the above with U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's statement: "With a 10,000% tax we could tax them out of existence." as reported on 4 November, 1993, by the Washington Post.]


"They that would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--Benjamin Franklin
"Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military conservators still multiply upon us, some of which are of such nature, and have been carried to so great lengths, as must serve fully to evince that a late vote of this town, calling upon its inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defence, was a measure as it was legal natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, (the post-Cromwellian English bill of rights) to keep arms for their own defence; and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
--"A Journal of the Times" (1768-1769) colonial Boston newspaper article.

Sentry: "Halt, who goes there?"
Voice : "An American."
Sentry: "Advance and recite the second verse of the Star Spangled Banner."
Voice : "I don't know it."
Sentry: "Proceed, American."
"The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of arms. The possession of these elements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues, and tends to permit uprising. Therefore, the heads of provinces, official agents, and deputies are ordered to collect all the weapons mentioned above and turn them over to the government."
--Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Shogun, August 29, 1558, Japan.
"War to the hilt between capitalism and communism is inevitable. Today, of course, we are not strong enough to attack. Our time will come in 20 or 30 years. In order to win, we shall need the element of surprise. The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep, so we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends. As soon as their guard is down, we shall smash them with our clenched fist."
--Quoted by Dmitri Z. Manuisky, Lenin School of Political Warfare (1931).
"Liberals, it has been said, are generous with other peoples' money, except when it comes to questions of national survival when they prefer to be generous with other people's freedom and security."
--William F. Buckley
"In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms... The phrase "the people" meant the same thing in the Second Amendment as it did in the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments -- that is, each and every free person. A select militia defined as only the privileged class entitled to keep and bear arms was considered an anathema to a free society, in the same way that Americans denounced select spokesmen approved by the government as the only class entitled to the freedom of the press."
--Stephen P. Holbrook, "That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right", University of New Mexico Press, 1984, pp. 83-84.
"He that violates his oath profanes the Divinity of faith itself."
--Cicero (found on LA City Hall)
"Disperse you Rebels - Damn you, throw down your Arms and disperse."
--Maj. John Pitcairn, Lexington, Massachusetts, April 19, 1775
"Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people."
--Aristotle. Quoted by John Trenchard and Walter Moyle "An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy" [London, 1697]
"To avoid domestic tyranny, the people must be armed to stand upon [their] own Defence; which if [they] are enabled to do, [they] shall never be put upon it, but [their] Swords may grow rusty in [their] hands; for that Nation is surest to live in Peace, that is most capable of making War; and a Man that hath a Sword by his side, shall have least occasion to make use of it."
--John Trenchard & Walter Moyle, "An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army is Inconsistent With a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy" [London, 1697] ("An Argument")
"Men that are above all Fear, soon grow above all Shame."
--John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon "Cato's Letters: Or, Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects" [London, 1755]
"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits. ... and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
--St. George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in, I Blackstone COMMENTARIES St. George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)
Too often foreign aid is when the poor people of a rich nation send their money to the rich people of a poor nation.
"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion."
--James Burgh "Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses" [London, 1774-1775]
"The difficulty here has been to persuade the citizens to keep arms, not to prevent them from being employed for violent purposes."
--Dwight "Travels in New-England"
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

"...And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations."

"How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights."
-- Joseph Story "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution" [Boston, 1833]


"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."
--Edward Abbey "The Right to Arms" [New York, 1979]
"An armed republic submits less easily to the rule of one of its citizens than a republic armed by foreign forces. Rome and Sparta were for many centuries well armed and free. The Swiss are well armed and enjoy great freedom. Among other evils caused by being disarmed, it renders you contemptible. It is not reasonable to suppose that one who is armed will obey willingly one who is unarmed; or that any unarmed man will remain safe among armed servants."

"... The answer is that one would like to be both the one and the other; but because it is difficult to combine them, it is far better to be feared than loved if you cannot be both. ...Men worry less about doing an injury to one who makes himself loved than to one who makes himself feared. The bond of love is one which men, wretched creatures that they are, break when it is to their advantage to do so; but fear is strengthened by a dread of punishment which is always effective."
--Machiavelli's "The Prince", Chapter 17


In the arguments over the validity of the Theory of Quantum Mechanics, Dr. Albert Einstein uttered his now oft-quoted line, "God does not play dice with the Universe", but rarely quoted is Dr. Neils Bohr's response, "Albert, stop telling God what to do."
"The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure."

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
--Albert Einstein


"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms -- never -- never -- NEVER! You cannot conquer America."
--William Pitt, Earl of Chatham Speech in the House of Lords November 18, 1777
"Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never -- in nothing, great or small, large or petty -- never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense."
--Winston Spencer Churchill Address at Harrow School, October 29, 1941

"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."

"In war you can only be killed once, but in politics, many times."

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

"I am always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught."

"Never turn your back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never!"
--Winston Churchill


"...the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious."

"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly...it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."
--Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister


"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."
--Heinrich Himmler
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"
--Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
"All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately ... The SS, SA and Stahlhelm give every respectable German man the opportunity of campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the above named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon ... must be regarded as an enemy of the national government."
--SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz, March, 1933.
God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it."
--Daniel Webster
"Democracy, the practice of self-government, is a covenant among free men to respect the rights and liberties of their fellows"

"Those who have long enjoyed such privileges as we enjoy forget in time that men have died to win them."
--Franklin D. Roosevelt


"You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
--Oliver Cromwell in dissolving Parliament, 1653
"Congress may give us a select militia which will, in fact, be a standing army -- or Congress, afraid of a general militia, may say there shall be no militia at all. When a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed."
--John Smilie
"If the laws of the Union were oppressive, they could not carry them into effect, if the people were possessed of the proper means of defence."
--William Lenoir
"Whenever people...entrust the defence of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens..."
--"A Framer" in The Independent Gazetteer, 1791
"A cardinal rule of bureaucracy is that it is better to extend an error than to admit a mistake."
--Colin Greenwood
" You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered."
--Lyndon Baines Johnson, former Senator and President.
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege."
--Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
--Senator Hubert Humphrey
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
--Mahatma Ghandi
"There is only one tactical principal which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death, and destruction in the minimum amount of time."

"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his."
--General George S. Patton


"We always hire Democratic Congressmen who promise to give us from the government all the things we want. And we always hire Republican Presidents to make sure we don't have to pay for it."
--T.J. Rodgers quoting in REASON
"The difference between death and taxes is death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
--Will Rogers
"They have rights who dare maintain them."
--James Russell Lowell
"The one weapon every man, soldier, sailor, or airman-should be able to use effectively is the rifle. It is always his weapon of personal safety in an emergency, and for many it is the primary weapon of offence and defense. Expertness in its use cannot be over emphasized."
--General (5 star and later U.S. President) Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1943.

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."
--5 Star General and former President Dwight David Eisenhower


We, free citizens of the Great Republic, feel an honest pride in her greatness, her strength, her just and gentle government, her wide liberties, her honored name, her stainless history, her unbesmirched flag, her hands clean from oppression of the weak and from malicious conquest, her hospitable door that stands open to the hunted and the persecuted of all nations; we are proud of the judicious respect in which she is held by monarchies which hem her in on every side, and proudest of all of that loft patriotism which we inherited from our fathers, which we have kept pure, and which won our liberties in the beginning and has preserved them unto this day. While patriotism endures the Republic is safe, her greatness is secure, and against them the powers of the earth can not prevail."

"Courage is resistance of fear, mastery of fear, not absence of fear."

"When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant, I could hardly stand to have him around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much he had learned in seven years."
--Mark Twain


Kill one man and you are a murderer. Kill millions and you are a conqueror. Kill everyone and you are a God.
--Jean Rostand
"...while the legislature has power in the most comprehensive manner to regulate the carrying and use firearms, that body has no power to constitute it a crime for a person, alien or citizen, to possess a revolver for the legitimate defense of himself and his property. The provisions in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the legislature to enact any law to the contrary."
--PEOPLE v. ZERILLO 219 Mich 635
"...The police power of the State to preserve public safety and peace and to regulate the bearing of arms cannot fairly be restricted to the mere establishment of conditions under which all sorts of weapons may be privately possessed, but it may account of the character and ordinary use of weapons and interdict those whose customary employment by individuals is to violate the law. The power is, of course, subject to the limitation that its exercise be reasonable and it cannot constitutionally result in the prohibition of the possession of those arms which, by the common opinion and usage of law-abiding people, are proper and legitimate to be kept upon private premises for the protection of person and property."
--PEOPLE v. BROWN 253 Mich 537
"...The right of the people peacefully to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is and always has been one of the attributes of a free government. It `derives its source,' to use the language of Chief Justice Marshall, in Gibbons v Ogden, 9 Wheat., 211, `from those laws whose authority is acknowledged by civilized man throughout the world.' It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution... The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of `bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependant upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government..."
--UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK; 92 US 542; (1875)
"The rifle of all descriptions, the shot gun, the musket and repeater are such arms; and that under the Constitution the right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed or forbidden by the legislature."

"...the right to keep arms necessarily involves the right to purchase them, to keep them in a state of efficiency for use, and to purchase and provide ammunition suitable for such arms, and to keep them in repair."
--ANDREWS v. STATE; 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk) 165,179,8 Am. Rep. 8, 14 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1871)


"...we incline to the opinion that the Legislature cannot inhibit the citizen from bearing arms openly, because it authorizes him to bear them for the purposes of defending himself and the State, and it is only when carried openly, that they can be efficiently used for defence."
--STATE v. REID; 1 Ala. 612, 619, 35 Am. Dec. 47; (1840)
"The practical and safe construction is that which must have been in the minds of those who framed our organic law. The intention was to embrace the 'arms,' an acquaintance with whose use was necessary for their protection against the usurpation of illegal power - such as rifles, muskets, shotguns, swords and pistols. These are now but little used in war; still they are such weapons that they or their like can still be considered as 'arms' which the [the people] have aright to bear."
--STATE v. KERNER; 181 NC 574, 107 SE 222, 224-25 (North Carolina Supreme Court, 1921.)
"If the text and purpose of the Constitutional guarantee relied exclusively on the preference for a militia `for defense of the State,' then the terms `arms' most likely would include only the modern day equivalents of the weapons used by the Colonial Militia Men."
--STATE v. KESSLER, 289 Or. 359, 369, 614 p. 2d 94,99 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1980.)
"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege."
--WILSON v. STATE, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)
"`The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right."
--NUNN v. STATE, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)
"[T]he right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the second amendment to the federal constitution is not carried over into the fourteenth amendment so as to be applicable to the states."
--STATE v. AMOS, 343 So. 2d 166, 168 (La. 1977)
"The end move in politics is always to pick up a gun."
--R. Buckminster Fuller
"If there is one basic element in our Constitution, it is civilian control of the military."
--President Harry S. Truman (1884-1972)
A camel is a horse designed by a committee and an elephant is a mouse built to military specifications."
--from page 321 of "Cryptoanalysis for Microcomputers" by Caxton C. Foster (University of Massachusetts), Hayden Book Co. Inc., 1982.
"It appears that the murder rate inside prisons is ten times higher than that outside prisons. It must be due to all those Kalashnikov rifles that are issued to prisoners upon their incarceration."
--Jeff Cooper in Guns & Ammo magazine, August, 1989.
"In all history the only bright rays cutting the gloom of oppression have come from men who would rather get hurt than give in."
--Jeff Cooper; from "Pistols and the Law" in "Cooper on Handguns"
"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
--Santayana
"The proper means of increasing the love we bear our native country is to reside some time in a foreign one."
--William Shenstone
"Americans may like guns because they were reminiscent of the smell of outdoors, military heroism, the intensity of the hunt or merely because they are fascinated by the finely machined metal parts. Maybe the origin of a gun speaks of history; maybe the gun makes a man's home seem to him less vulnerable; maybe these feelings are more justified in the country than in the city; but, above all, many of us believe that these feelings are a man's own business and need not be judged by the Department of the Treasury or the Department of Justice."
--Samuel Cummings
"If a gun bill will pass because of the politics of the situation, you must see to it that its burdens are imposed upon a man because of a criminal background and not because he is an ordinary citizen and perhaps poor."
--Gen. James H. Doolittle
"...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
--Luke 22:36
"In war, there is no substitute for victory."
--General Douglas MacArthur
"In war there is no second prize for the runner-up."
--General Omar Bradley.
"Wars may be fought with weapons but they are won by men. It is the spirit of men who follow and of the man who leads that gains the victory."
--General George Patton
The only way to win a war is to prevent it.
--General George Marshall
MILITARY APHORISMS

Never share a foxhole with anyone braver than you are.
If your attack is going really well, it's an ambush.
No military combat plan survives the first contact with the enemy intact.
If you are short of everything except enemy, then you are in combat.
Incoming fire has the right of way.
If the enemy is in range, so are you.
Friendly fire - isn't.
Things that must be together to work usually are not shipped together.
Anything you do can get you shot - including doing nothing.
Make it too tough for the enemy to get in, and you can't get out.
Tracers work both ways.
The only thing more accurate than incoming enemy fire is incoming friendly fire.
Professional soldiers are predictable, but the world is full of amateurs.
The proper means of increasing the love we bear our native country is to reside some time in a foreign one.
--William Shenstone
"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."
--Charles A. Beard
The anti-gun movement is like a pair of baby's diapers: always on your ass and full of shit.
--Richard Bash - Combat Arms BBS SysOp.
"The great body of our citizens shoot less as times goes on. We should encourage rifle practice among schoolboys, and indeed among all classes, as well as in the military services by every means in our power. Thus, and not otherwise, may we be able to assist in preserving peace in the world... The first step -- in the direction of preparation to avert war if possible, and to be fit for war if it should come -- is to teach men to shoot!"
--President Theodore Roosevelt's last message to Congress.
"This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life."

"My rifle, without me, is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will..."

"My rifle and myself know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know it is only the hits that count. We will hit..."

"My rifle is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights, and its barrel. I will ever guard it against the ravages of weather and damage. I will keep my rifle clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will..."

"Before God I swear this creed: My rifle and myself are the defenders of our country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life. So be it until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but Peace!"
--From "My Rifle" by Major General W.H. Rupertus, USMC.


"A man with his heart in his profession imagines and finds resources where the worthless and lazy despair."
--Frederic the Great, in instructions to his Generals.
"All military science becomes a matter of simple prudence, its principle object being to keep an unstable balance from shifting suddenly to our disadvantage and the proto-war from changing into total war."
--Clausewitz (From the book "On War" by Raymond Aron, Doubleday, New York, 1959).
"The American Revolution was a beginning, not a consummation."
--Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States (1856-1924).
"With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but with tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will be certainly be lost."
--William Lloyd Garrison
No combat-ready squad ever passed inspection. No inspection-ready squad ever passed combat.
--Heard in Vietnam
C.S. Lewis: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences."
"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth fighting for is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares about more than his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--Seen on a poster at a gun show. No author was cited for this truly excellent statement.
"I was that which others did not want to be. I went where others feared to go, and did what others failed to do. I asked nothing from those who gave nothing, and reluctantly accepted the thought of eternal loneliness...should I fail. I have seen the face of terror, felt the stinging cold of fear; and enjoyed the sweet taste of a moment's love. I have cried, pained, and hoped...but most of all, I have lived times others would say were best forgotten. At least someday I will be able to say that I was proud of what I was...a soldier."
--George L. Skypeck
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
--William Shakespeare; Henry VI, Act IV, Scene II, spoken by Dick the Butcher.
"Tell General Howard I know my heart. What he told me before, I have in my heart. I am tired of fighting. Our chiefs are killed. Looking Glass is dead. Toohoolhoolzote is dead. The old men are all killed. It is the young men who say yes or no. He who led the young men [Ollokot; his brother] is dead. It is cold and we have no blankets. The little children are freezing to death. I want time to look for my children, and see how many of them I can find. Maybe I shall find them among the dead. Hear me, my chiefs. I am tired; my heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever."
--Chief Joseph; Wallowa Nez Perc tribe; October 5, 1877; Montana, near the Canadian border.
"No man is competent unless he can stalk alone and armed in the wilderness."
--Townsend Whelen
"Indeed, I am now of the opinion that a compelling case for "stricter gun control" cannot be made, at least not on empirical grounds. I have nothing but respect for the various pro-gun control advocates with whom I have come in contact over the past years. They are, for the most part, sensitive, humane and intelligent people, and their ultimate aim, to reduce death and violence in our society, is one that every civilized person must share. I have, however, come to be convinced that they are barking up the wrong tree."
--James Wright (scholarly research who collaborates with Peter Rossi)
"Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it."
--Goethe
LOCK, STOCK, AND BARREL - This phrase, denoting the whole thing, the entirety of it all, is an old expression, used as early as the American Revolutionary War. It comes from the three principle parts of a [muzzle loading] firearm: the barrel, "the pipe down which the bullets are fired," the lock, "the firing mechanism," and the stock, "the wooden handle to which the other parts are attached." Together, lock, stock and barrel referred to the entire gun and the phrase are now used to suggest the whole of anything.
--M.T. Wyllyamz; 1992; published by Price, Stern, Sloan, Los Angeles.
"Poor people have access to the courts in the same sense that the Christians had access to the lions. . ."
--Judge Earl Johnson Jr.
"It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."
--Justice Robert H. Jackson
"A great industrial Nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world -- no longer a Government of free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men."
--Woodrow Wilson
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much ... to forget it."
--James Madison
"Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolate. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture."
--Sir William Blackstone
"I always marveled at how a woman who had never handled a gun could shoot an errant husband straight through the heart on her first try, with one shot. And a trained policeman, trying to shoot an armed bank robber, only ends up hitting a elderly woman waiting for a bus two blocks away."
--H.L. Mencken in his autobiographical "Newspaper Days"
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!), but "That's funny ..."
--Isaac Asimov
"There are only three kinds of people: those who make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those who wonder 'what happened?'."
--Anonymous
"It is often easier to apologize for your actions than to ask permission to do those actions."
--Anonymous
"Ships are very safe when in port. Unfortunately a ship's mission has nothing to do with staying in port!"
--Anonymous
Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface.
--Anonymous
"Obviously, a man's judgment cannot be better than the information on which he has based it. Give him the truth and he may still go wrong when he has the chance to be right, but give him no news or present him only with distorted and incomplete data, with ignorant, sloppy or biased reporting, with propaganda and deliberate falsehoods, and you destroy his whole reasoning process, and make him something less than a man."
--Arthur Hays Sulzberger, 1891-1968, American newspaper publisher
In a study by the BATF and Washington DC police called "Operation CUE (Concentrated Urban Enforcement)" the BATF determined that in Washington DC -- where civilian possession of firearms is for all practical purposes BANNED -- guns used in crimes came from three major sources: 40% stolen from legal owners (presumably outside DC) 40% stolen from the DC police (!!!!) 20% homemade (not a shoddy number)
The following was originally posted by Phil Ronzone. Statistics seem to indicate that there are fewer injuries when a gun is present at a crime scene. Information in the rest of this posting comes from:
Report to the Nation on Crime and Justice, Second Edition, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ-105506, March 1988.

HOW DO PEOPLE PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM CRIME?

There has been debate of how much (if any!?) crime has been prevented by owning a firearm.

The following figures are based on the BJS National Crime Survey, 1979-85, and are reported as follows. Note that only victims reporting sucessful prevention are reported (i.e., no homicide figures).

The percent figure is the percentage of the victimizations that were PREVENTED. A weapon was used or brandished ... 3% in 1,206,755 rapes -----> 36,202 A weapon was used or brandished ... 4% in 8,484,516 robberies -> 339,380 A weapon was used or brandished ... 4% in 36,269,845 assaults --> 1,450,793 --------- 1,826,375

Seems to me that 1.8 million violent victimizations speak pretty highly of weapons use and brandishing.

VICTIM-OFFENDER RELATIONSHIP FOR HOMICIDES, ASSAULTS, ROBBERIES

Again, most murder victims are NOT relatives!!
                   Homicide  Robbery  Assault
                   --------  -------  -------
       Strangers     18%       75%      51%
       Acquaintance  39%       17%      35%
       Relative      18%        4%       4%
       Unknown       26%        4%       4%

            WEAPONS INVOLVED IN CRIME

For 1985, for robbery and assaults, the following is how
many incidents involved a firearm and how many involved a knife.
                 Robbery  Assault
                 -------  -------
         Firearm   23%      12%
         Knife     21%      10%

What is MOST interesting is that in robbery and assaults, a gun was ACTUALLY fired and hit the victim ONLY 4% of the time in all incidents in 1985! Yet victims were actually stabbed in 10% in the knives incidents. i.e., for robbery and assaults, it will be about even the number of times a gun is used or a knife is used, yet if a knife is used, you will be TWICE as likely to be stabbed as to be shot.

A quote from page 21: "When guns are present victims are less likely to be injured than if the offender is armed with a knife or other weapon because guns are often used to coerce the victim into compliance, according to the NCS".

INTERESTING QUOTES

Page 14: "The percentage of households touched by crime has declined over the past 10 years ... from 32% of households [touched by crime] to 25% of all households ... personal larceny from 16% to 12%, burglary from 8% to 5%.

Page 15: A beautiful picture (of a graph) showing the decline in per capita homcides since 1980.

The phrase originates with John Selde, (1584-1654) in 'Table Talk'

"Ignorance of the law excuses no man; not that all men know the law, but that because 'tis an excuse every man will plead, and no man can tell how to confute him."


Subject: Cicero on Self-Defense, written 43 B.C.

"And indeed, gentlemen, there exists a law, not written down anywhere but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading but by derivation and absorption and adoption from nature itself; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robberies or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right. When weapons reduce them to silence, the laws no longer expect one to await their pronouncments. For people who decide to wait for these will have to wait for justice, too -- and meanwhile they suffer injustice first. Indeed, even the wisdom of the law itself, by a sort of tacit implication, permits self-defense, because it does not actually forbid men to kill; what it does, instead, is to forbid the bearing of a weapon with the intention to kill. When, therefore, an inquiry passes beyond the mere question of the weapon and starts to consider the motive, a man who has used arms in self-defense is not regarded as having carried them with a homicidal aim."

quoted on page 17 in Stephen P. Halbrook -- That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right

published in 1984, by The University of New Mexico Press and The Independent Institute.


The following is copied from The Soldiers Training Manual issued by the War Department, November 30, 1928:

TM2000-25: 118-120 DEMOCRACY: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic- negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

TM 2000-25: 120-121 REPUBLIC: Authority is derived throughout the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.


{CASE} Farmer vs. Higgens (1991 -- 11th Circuit) -- SC declined to hear an appeal of this case in which the Circuit Court upheld the 1986 Congressional ban on the manufacture of new machine guns.
{CASE} Griswold vs. Connecticut (1965)
{CASE} Lewis vs. United States (1980) -- SC upheld the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibitions against felons owning firearms. The Court used a rational basis test in its decision, as opposed to strict scrutiny. The Court stated, "These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms do not trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."
{CASE} Presser vs. Illinois (1886) -- SC ruled the the 2nd amendment serves only to prevent the federal government from interfering with state militias. States retain the power to regulate firearms.
{CASE} United States vs. Miller (1939) -- SC upheld a federal law against shipping sawed-off shotguns across state lines, on the basis that the law did not affect the "preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."
{CASE} United States vs. Warin (1976 -- 6th Circuit) -- The Circuit Court upheld a conviction under a federal law prohibiting possession of unregistered machine guns. The Court held that "every argument made by the defendant...[is] based on the erroneous supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the rights of individuals rather than those of the states."
{CASE} 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177, late 2d, Sec 256 (?): "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it."
{CASE} 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177, late 2d, Sec 256: "No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it."
{CASE} Amos vs. Mosley, 74 Fla. 555; 77 So. 619: "If the legislature clearly misinterprets a constitutional provision, the frequent repetition of the wrong will not create a right."
{CASE} Bowers vs. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, at 618 (7th Cir. 1982): "There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."
{CASE} Brandes vs. Mitteriling, 196 P.2d 464, 467, 657 Ariz 349: "Sovereignty means supremacy in respect of power, domination, or rank; supreme dominion, authority or rule."
{CASE} Chisholm vs. State of Georgia (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp. 471-472: "...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty."
{CASE} Chisholm vs. State of Georgia, Ga., 2. U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 471, 1 L. Ed. 440: ""Sovereignty" is the right to govern. In Europe the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the prince; here it rests with the people. There the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance. Our governors are the agents of the people, and at most stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereign. Their princes have personal powers, dignities, and pre-eminences. Our rulers have none but official, nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity than as private citizens."
{CASE} City of Bisbee vs. Cochise County, 78 P.2d 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1: ""Government" is not "sovereignty." "Government" is the machinery or expedient for expressing the will of the sovereign power."
{CASE} Filbin Corporation vs. United States, D.C.S.C., 266 F. 911, 914: "The "sovereignty" of the United States consists of the powers existing in the people as a whole and the persons to whom they have delegated it, and not as a separate personal entity, and as such it does not possess the personal privileges of the sovereign of England; and the government, being restrained by a written Constitution, cannot take property without compensation, as can the English government by act of king, lords, and Parliament."
{CASE} Hale vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 279: "If, whenever an officer of employee of a corporation were summoned before a grand jury as a witness he could refuse to produce the books and documents of such corporation, upon the ground that they would incriminate the corporation itself, it would result in the failure of a large number of cases where the illegal combination was determinable only upon the examination of such papers. Conceding that the witness was an officer of the corporation under investigation, and that he was entitled to assert the rights of the corporation with respect to the production of its books and papers, we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public as long as he does not trespass upon their rights." /-P-/ "Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers..."
{CASE} Kingsley vs. Merril, 122 Wis. 185; 99 NW 1044: "A long and uniform sanction by law revisers and lawmakers, of a legislative assertion and exercise of power, is entitled to a great weight in construing an ambiguous or doubtful provision, but is entitled to no weight if the statute in question is in conflict with the plain meaning of the constitutional provision."
{CASE} Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (@ Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803): "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
{CASE} Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491: "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
{CASE} Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p.442: "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
{CASE} Riley vs. Carter, 165 Okal. 262; 25 P. 2d 666; 79 ALR 1018: "Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of cardinal constitutional guarantee."
{CASE} Robin vs. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, (Va., 1772): "All acts of the legislature apparently contrary to natural rights and justice are, in our law and must be in the nature of things, considered void ... We are in conscience bound to disobey."
{CASE} Scott vs. Sandford, Mo., 60 US 393, 404, 19 How. 393, 404, 15 L.Ed. 691: "The words "sovereign people" are those who form the sovereign, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. Every citizen is one of these people and a constituent member of this sovereignty."
{CASE} Slote vs. Board of Examiners, 274 N.Y. 367; 9 NE 2d 12; 112 ALR 660: "Disobedience or evasion of a constitutional mandate may not be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public."
{CASE} State vs. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 65 NW 262, 30 L.R.A. 630 Am. St. 459: "When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it." (See 16 Ma. Jur. 2d 177, 178) {CASE} US vs. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972): "The pages of history shine on instance of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge ..."
{CASE} US vs. Miller (supreme Court): "The signification attributed to the term Militia appear from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators [Justice Story's commentary is cited later]. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense... And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of a kind in common use at the time."
{CASE} US vs. Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1969, 417 F.2d at 1006: "If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence ... and the courts must abide by that decision."
{CASE} Warren vs. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181): "... a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..."
{CASE} Wills vs. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 105 L.Ed. 2nd 45 (1989): "States and state officials acting officially are held not to be "persons"
subject to liability under 42 USCS section 1983."
{CASE} Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, Sheriff, 118 U.S. 356.: "Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to the law, for it is the author and source of law, but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts." - "For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself."
{CODE} 26 USC 7701 A(1)(14): "The term "taxpayer" means any person subject to any internal revenue tax."
{CODE} 4 USC 71 & 72.. Title 4, USC Section 71: "All that part of the territory of the United States included within the present limits of the District of Columbia shall be the permanent seat of the United States."
{CODE} 56 L.Ed. 2d. 895 -- Def. of "person": "Statutes employing the word "person" are ordinarily construed to exclude the sovereign."
{CODE} Title 4, USC Section 72: "All offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia and not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly provided by law."
From Dick Armey's "The Freedom Revolution" (Regnery Publishing, 1995), as reviewed in the February, 1996, Freeman:
"The politics of greed always comes wrapped in the language of love."
"When you're weaned from the milk of sacred cows, you're bound to get heartburn." "Social responsibility is a euphemism for personal irresponsibility."
"There is nothing more arrogant than a self-righteous income redistributor."
On U.S. farm policy: "One bad government program creates the need for a worse one."
William H. Peterson, from February, 1996, Freeman: "Nothing succeeds like a failed government program."
Blaise Pascal, 1670: It is force, not opinion, that queens its way over the world, but it is opinion that looses the force.
Nobel laureate John Steinbeck: "We may be thankful that frightened civil authorities ... have not managed to eradicate from the country the tradition of the possession and use of firearms, that profound and almost instinctive tradition of Americans.
"Luckily for us, our tradition of bearing arms has not gone from the country, the tradition is so deep and so dear to us that it is one of the most treasured parts of the Bill of Rights--the right of all Americans to bear arms, with the implication that they will know how to use them."
"...The Bill of Rights is a literal and absolute document. The First Amendment doesn't say you have a right to speak out unless the government has a 'compelling interest' in censoring the Internet. The Second Amendment doesn't say you have the right to keep and bear arms until some madman plants a bomb. The Fourth Amendment doesn't say you have the right to be secure from search and seizure unless some FBI agent thinks you fit the profile of a terrorist. The government has no right to interfere with any of these freedoms under any circumstances."
--Harry Browne, 1996 USA presidential candidate, Libertarian Party
THAT'S ALL (I've found), FOLKS!
If you've actually read all (or even most) of the above, please drop me a note (mac@cis.ksu.edu) and let me know that this "work" was actually worth it. (So far, one person has.)
#####