Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 21:54:18 -0400
From: Douglas Davis <[d--i--a] at [rmi.net]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[r k ba alert] at [mainstream.net]>
Subject: FYI

The source of the following is credited at the end:

 Kennesaw Update

 March 25th [1996] marked the 14th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's widely
publicized ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions)
to keep at least one firearm in their homes. Since the ordinance was
enacted, there have been only two murders (one each in 1984 and 1989), both
with knives. The city's current population is around 17,000. After the law
went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent
compared to 1981 and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1981.

 In addition to virtually non-existent homicide (an average of 0.15 non-gun
related murders per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential
burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively,
1.6, 29.7, 20.8, and 1.6 through March of this year.
 
 LAW IS NO PROTECTION AGAINST STATE TYRANNY

 by Charley Reese

 The law cannot protect people against tyranny. Tacitus, a Roman historian,
correctly observed, "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."

 Unfortunately, many Americans have been seduced by the propaganda of our
overly large legal industry to accept the legal processes as the final word.
"We must be a nation of laws," they like to say. Whatever the law is or
whatever the courts say the law is, we must obey, our barrister friends advise.

 The legal process, however, may produce a result that is either just or
unjust; the process itself may be corrupt or used corruptly; and finally,
the law itself may be an abomination.

 A few examples will suffice to prove the point that the law is no
protection against tyranny. Nazi officials broke no German laws when they
sent people to their deaths. Neither did Soviet officials. Tyrants, in fact,
always use the law to accomplish their oppressions.

 "Law, logic and Switzers (Swiss mercenaries) may be hired to fight for
anybody," says an old English proverb.

 If Americans continue to drift toward authoritarian rule, they will find
themselves legally oppressed. Their liberty will not have been stolen by an
army at bayonet point. Liberty will have been stolen by legislation passed,
signed and upheld by the courts - in short by the law and the enforcement of
laws.

 Slavery was legal, recognized in the U.S. Constitution, upheld by the U.S.
Supreme Court. There were many laws on the books governing slavery. No
abolitionists ever argued that slavery was illegal. They argued that it was
immoral and unjust. Yet, if people in those days had done what lawyers want
people to do today - accept the law because it is the law - slavery might
have existed a lot longer than it did.

 Racial segregation was also legal. Those laws were passed by democratically
elected legislatures and upheld by U.S. courts, including the Supreme Court
of the United States. Again, no one argued that racial segregation was
illegal; people argued that it was unjust.

 Even when the Supreme Court got around to reversing itself on school
segregation, it did so on the basis of sociology, only indirectly on the
legal issues. In its decision the Supreme Court implicitly recognized that
separate but equal schools satisfied the law in theory but said sociological
evidence demonstrated that separation itself resulted in inequality.

 The taxes imposed on the American patriots who rebelled against England
were legal taxes. The patriots never argued that taxes had been illegally
imposed on them; they argued it was unjust to levy taxes on people without
giving them a voice in the decision.

 I can't think of any great event in history that materially improved the
welfare of humankind and that resulted from mere legislation or a Court
decision. After revolutions, lawyers come in and codify the results, but the
revolutions are accomplished by people acting on their own sense of what is
right and wrong, what is just and unjust.

 The Magna Carta, the first step in our English ancestors' quest for
liberty, was not accomplished by lawyers but by barons in command of armies.
The Constitution was the result of, not the cause of, the American Revolution.

 Americans, if they are to survive as a free people, will have to rely on
some moral compass other than the law. They will have to, as others have
done, force the law to conform to their morals and sense of justice - not
sacrificing their morals and sense of justice to the law.

 They must, like their ancestors, be ever ready, when circumstances justify
it, to say in the immortal words of a Charles Dickens character, "The law is
an a$$, an idiot."

 Charley Reese, a Georgia native, is a nationally syndicated columnist based
at the Orlando (Fla) Sentinel.

 PENICILLIN & GUNS?

 by Dr. Paul Galland and Dr. Joanne D. Eisen

 Pick up any major medical journal today and you are as likely to see a
paper about guns and violence in America as you are about a new antibiotic.

 What's the connection? That's a good question, because there really isn't
any connection between guns and medicine, except the one contrived by the
anti-self-defense lobby's willing accomplices in the medical profession!

 The truth of the matter is that the medical literature has been "doctored."
It is being used as the vehicle to propagate lies being told about us -
law-abiding American gun-owners - by the firearm- prohibitionists of
America. These "scientists" - the medical- politicians - have set out to
"prove" that gun-owners are a "public health" menace to themselves, their
families and to the rest of America.

 The "studies" concocted by these politically-driven "researchers" are the
ammunition used by America's media to bombard American citizens with a
steady stream of lies about guns and gun-owners. And they do this for one
simple reason: to create a climate in which Americans are willing, almost
eager, to give away their birthright - the safeguards to their very liberty,
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights - all for the sake of what is portrayed as
a "civilized" society.

 They continue, even as you read this, to build their case, lie upon lie, in
scientific terms which are difficult for the non-scientist to understand or
refute. They do this by perverting accepted scientific methods and
principles, and by misusing statistics to arrive at false "conclusions." And
they plant these lies - pseudo-scientific double- talk - within the medical
literature, a body of knowledge of sufficient stature to intimidate most of
the lay public and discourage them from challenging their politically-driven
"research," and phony conclusions. [1]

 Adding insult to injury, they use millions of dollars of OUR money to do
this, through taxpayer-funded agencies like the CDC's National center for
Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC). According to Dr. Edgar Suter,
national Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR),

 "Virtually all of the primary research has been funded with money funneled
through CDC-NCIPC ... Much of the shoddy research has been funded by
taxpayers through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and
legitimate concern has been raised about the politicization of that research."

 For example, one "study" by the medical-politicians, published in the New
England Journal of Medicine, "proved" that Washington DC is 25 percent safer
now because of its virtual ban on firearms. [2]

 Another "study" by these people casually misplaces a number of felons,
killed by police in the line of duty, into the column labeled "victims,"
thereby increasing the number of "victims" in that study. The goal of this
study? - to provide "proof" that guns kept in the home for defensive
purposes are more likely to create victims than to protect you. [3] And the
litany of "medical" studies "proving" guns are bad just goes on and on.

 To anyone who pictures scientists and medical researchers as non- political
"book-worm" types, with their heads perennially in a test-tube or autoclave,
the thought that some of these people might go so far as to subvert science
or medicine for a political agenda might come as a bit of a surprise. That,
however, is the simple fact of the matter!

 Just as in the legal profession, science and medicine also depend on
precedence. Previous scientific "truths" comprise the building blocks for
future discoveries. Medical researchers use the results of earlier "truths,"
published in the literature, to build upon, and to push medical know-how to
the limit.

 The problem is that there exists, today, a massive body of "junk" medical
literature - these so-called "research papers" on firearms and violence in
America - based not at all upon scientific investigation, but on fraud and
deceit churned out by the medical-politicians. The dissemination of this
junk science has been accomplished with the help of those
medical-politicians in positions of power, in many of America's
once-prestigious medical journals.

 And so, some hard questions must be asked. Are we, as Americans, willing to
accept medical care and public policy premised on a political agenda,
instead of on sound medical truth? Are we, as parents, willing to accept
fabricated data and false conclusions which might adversely affect our own
family's well-being? And, are we willing to accept sub-standard medical
care, provided by doctors whose training is founded in "political
correctness," instead of adherence to the Hippocratic Oath which places the
patient's welfare paramount to all other concerns? These questions must be
asked because this is EXACTLY what's happening in medicine today!

 The issue of politically-corrupted medical science is something which
profoundly affects ALL Americans, because we are ALL consumers of medical
care! And so, if your answers to those questions are a resounding "NO!" then
the only possible course of action is to condemn this outrageous state of
affairs now, in the strongest possible terms, and by all Americans,
gun-owners or not!

 To help reverse this tide of "voodoo" medicine, Senator Bob Smith (R-NH)
has proposed an Amendment to HR-2127, which would begin to de-fund the
politically-driven misuse of taxpayer funds by the CDC's National Center for
Injury Prevention and Control, spent on efforts to disarm honest Americans.
Does YOUR representative know about the Smith Amendment? Has he or
signed on as a co-sponsor yet?

 Your representatives' stand on this and similar pieces of legislation
should be among the questions listed on your "scorecard," kept real handy
for the time when they come around asking for your vote. Your
representatives' support (or lack thereof) for legislation like this should
be known to you, well in advance of an election.

 As a responsible citizen, it's YOUR job to be informed about this, and to
let your representatives know that you will hold THEM accountable for the
use of taxpayer monies to advance politically- motivated, corrupt research,
all in the name of "public health."

 The leverage - and the lever - of the ballot box is one mechanism we
Americans still have to ensure that accountability!

 References:

 1) "Guns - Who Should Have Them," Edited by David B. Kopel, and published
by Prometheus Books, New York 1995. (Chapter 5 is all about "Bad Medicine:
Doctors & Guns.")

 2) Loftin, C., PhD., et al: "Effects of Restrictive Licensing of Handguns
on Homicide and Suicide in the District of Columbia," NEJM, Vol 325, No. 23,
12/05/91

 3) Kellermann, A., et al: "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in
the Home," NEJM, Vol 329, No. 15, 10/07/93

 About the Authors:

 Dr. Joanne D. Eisen is engaged in the private practice of Family Dentistry.
She is President, Association of Dentists for Accuracy in Scientific Media,
a national organization of dentists concerned with preserving the integrity
of the professional dental literature, against the politicization which has
corrupted America's medical literature.

 Dr. Paul Gallant is engaged in the private practice of Family Optometry,
Wesley Hills, NY. He is Chairman, Committee for Law- Abiding Gun-Owners,
Rockland (LAGR), a 2nd Amendment grassroots group, based in Rockland County, NY.

 The authors may be reached at:

 LAGR P.O. Box 354 Thiells, NY 10984-0354

  RUDE AWAKENING

 by Monte Dunn

 A substantial portion of the post World War II baby boomers have bought
into the mythology of the "love" generation - the misplaced notion that
through free love, rock and roll, pot smoking, and "turning on, tuning in
and dropping out," somehow peace and understanding would come to the world.
Even those who chose a more conventional path, at least on the surface, have
somehow bought into this fallacy. Many of the older baby boomers have a
misguided belief that the simple act of passively wishing evil from the face
of the earth will cause it to vanish (hence the "Visualize World Peace"
bumper sticker).

 Of course, the elite among the boomers have begun to accept the very
trappings of power they once scorned (Bill & Hillary, for example). But even
being a member of the liberal media and political elite does not exempt one
from the hard realities of street crime. Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd (yes
- the son of Tom "Gun Control Act of 1968" Dodd) was mugged near Gracie
Mansion, home of the mayor of New York City.

 What with this group now in its mid-thirties to fifty years old, they will
soon come to fear the new baby boom. Crime - especially violent crime - has
long been the business of the young. Today, criminologists of all political
opinions warn that a surge of young people will be reaching the crime-prone
years very soon. To make matters worse, the age at which kids are turning to
really horrible crimes has reached an all time low. Not even Charles Dickens
in his tales of the hard life of the young in last century's England could
have imagined the sort of cold-blooded, stone killers America has been
breeding. Even 20 years ago when I drove a cab in New York City, we didn't
fear the 30-year-old, drug-addicted, armed robber. he would just take the
money and run - knowing that most cabbies wouldn't even report it to the
cops (You'd lose the rest of your shift and its earnings in addition to what
you already lost, and even if the cops caught the guy, the money would
already be up his arm!).

 We feared the kids. The 14 or 15-year-olds, who, knowing they would usually
serve no more than two to four years for first degree murder, would kill you
for the fun of it. Now there are 11 and 12-year-olds who are even more
dangerous and more heartless. This current baby boom is not as
demographically diverse as the last one. In 1945 and '46 when the G.I.s came
home, they were decent, hard-working citizens moving into the middle class.
Today the boom is coming from the socially disabled poor - the welfare
state's mini-Frankensteins. While most of that population will at least try
to lift themselves out of poverty and degradation - as the poor in every
time, in every culture have tried to do - just by the numbers and the fact
that most of the young men will have no positive male role models, the
coming years will bring a plague of violent crime.

 As the older baby boomers reach the geriatric stage, they will find
themselves easier prey than ever. How many 60-year-olds could hold their own
in a fight with even one 16-year-old? Must less two or three. As the "flower
children" of the sixties become the prey of feral youth gangs, how long will
even the social elite among them continue to view armed self-defense as
"barbaric?" Perhaps all you DO need is love - and a .45 ACP! It is easy from
the safety of the White House, or the state house, or a well-guarded
apartment building on Park Avenue with a limousine waiting at the door, or a
Beverly Hills mansion where the cops routinely question anyone on foot or
not driving a $30,000 car (I know - I was once rousted for walking there!),
or in some Ivy-League ivory tower, to mock those who feel the very real need
to have all the options of self-defense open.

 But this media-academia-social elite are in for a rude awakening. While
they may enjoy all the security their money can supply, there will be chinks
in the armor. People who they know, but are not in the same financial or
political class, will fall victim to the generation of young thugs every
criminologist knows is coming. While they may differ in their explanations
and proposed cures, liberal, conservative and libertarian crime experts
foresee a surge in violent crime. And while much youth crime takes place
among people of the same age, race and class, affluent "elderly" people are
more likely targets when the criminal is motivated by the possibility of
financial gain (or the least likelihood of encountering a serious defense).

 Will the show biz-political-media elite eventually abandon their rants
against armed self-defense being "barbaric" and unfit for a "civilized"
nation? Time and tragedy will tell. But until such deluded fools come to
understand the reality of our world, we must be ever vigilant in the defense
of all our rights.

 brought to you by the Final Burn BBS Rome, GA (706) 232-5308 Supporting the
fight for your Second Amendment rights