P O T S H O T S The G.U.N.S. Newsletter (Gunowners Using Network Services) Volume 2, Number 2 September 1, 1996 ===== This issue's contents: THE "THIRTY YEARS' WAR" -- GUN CONTROL, 1967-1997 by Joel Friedman (MOCHI1@ix.netcom.com) WHOOP-DEE-DOO by (The Old Blue Howler) DOWN AND DIRTY DOWN UNDER: LESSONS FROM THE AUSSIE GUN BAN by ShortShots! ===== THE "THIRTY YEARS' WAR" -- GUN CONTROL, 1967-1997 by Joel Friedman (MOCHI1@ix.netcom.com) [Editor's note: Joel is President of the NRA Members Council of Pasadena, CA, and has had numerous appearances on television. He was named Gun Rights Defender of the Month in April 1994 by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and has been active in forming the new 13-city Pasadena/Foothills Members' Council.] A lot can happen in thirty years. But when you live in a period of great change--when you are actually "in" the period--sometimes it is difficult or impossible to see what's really happening, what's happened, or what it means. Profound changes can occur when they are spread over thirty years in subtle, cumulative increments. Some major questions that keep coming to my mind of late are: How did we, the firearms-owning community, get into the precarious position we are presently in, and how will we get out of it? At first, these might seem like fairly easy questions. But, on closer analysis, this is absolutely not true. The problems that firearms owners are experiencing have developed mostly during the last thirty years. Some readers may look back to the 1934 National Firearms Act, or perhaps to the 1906 Sullivan Act, and arguably conclude it has been nearly a century. But the truth is, most of the anti-gun problems we are facing today began in 1967. I am not a research scholar, but I have lived through the past three decades as an adult and, therefore, feel fairly qualified to speak about this period from my own life experience. For much of the 1960s, most firearms owners simply enjoyed their hobby and gave little thought about the "rights" associated with firearms. Working to make a better everyday life for one's self and family, worry over the threat of nuclear destruction, and concern about Communism on our side of the globe were some of the typical issues of the day. But this was also the time when the younger generation began to ask, WHY? Why do we have to do things the same way as our forefathers? Why is there so much hunger in the world? Why do we have to fight a war that seems so unjust? Why are we supposed to accept what the government tells us? Additionally, a powerful sentiment was developing in many of the younger generation that said, "We should all be able to live peacefully together." War was bad, killing was bad, harming anything for any reason was bad. As we grew older and learned more about life, most of us realized that while these grand visions seemed wonderful, they would be possible only in a perfect world of perfect people. The reality is that humans are not perfect. Bad things happen and will continue to happen as long people exist. The evidence is overwhelming that imperfection is permanently designed-in to human nature and human being(s). Remember I said "most" of us. There is, however, a large percentage who have not given up "The Vision" of their 1960s youth. These idealists began looking realistically at what it would actually take to change the world. They began to understand that to do a really effective job of making the world a better place to live in (by their standards) they would have to assume role model positions in our society. Activists at first, these people gradually became bureaucrats, and then many became elected officials. Because they understood that the media shape and drive public opinion, they got involved in television, radio, and journalism. And, perhaps most importantly, they entered our national education system. In droves. Quietly, almost imperceptibly, the new "Thirty Years' War" had begun. The idealists were hardly noticed for a while, and some of the work they did was good for all of us as a society. During these early years, we realists were busy trying to make a better life "the old fashion way--we were trying to earn it." About 28 years ago, we suddenly began hearing that one of our fundamental rights--one that we had never considered as being in danger--was being boldly challenged. We asked, "What do we do?" We complained a lot. After we complained, the other side softened their position. Sadly, many of us decided that what was being attempted was relatively minor, that we could live with it. A minor inconvenience. The majority of us went back to living our regular lives and enjoying our hobby. The few who realized that the war had begun stayed on and fought, and these few are the ones we call our leaders today. Fast forward. Now it is ten years ago. We suddenly find that we are losing our fundamental rights. Not only at a steady rate, but at one that is increasing in VELOCITY. A tiny percentage of us decide that this is not acceptable, and we finally begin to fight on an ongoing basis. But most of us decide that as long as someone (else) is doing it, we don't personally have to do it, and we go back to living our regular lives and trying to enjoy our hobby. Now, here we are today, late 1996. We look out at our society and ask ourselves, how did the situation get so screwed up? Why are so many people saying and doing such crazy things? We also are asking, what can we do? But we know that just trying to make a living takes up all of our waking time, and we still we can't seem to make a better life for ourselves. The simple answer is...that it is all our own fault. We are responsible. The Thirty Years' War on Guns is happening, and it's still raging. Until we do something about it, it is not going to get better. It is going to get worse. Much worse. How is it our fault? The answer can be seen in the essential differences between our people and our opponents. First, while the gun control people got angry, just like we got angry, the gun controllers also made a career out of their anger. Most of our people simply would not consider such a thing. Second, the other side works together better than we do. We are learning, but the process is slow. Finally, the gun prohibitionists are totally committed to their goal--even if it takes a lifetime of sacrifice. Many people on our side hold the idea that, "We can win this battle and then go back to the normal routine of our lives". Reality check: In doing almost nothing for three decades, we are not going to be winning this war unless we plan to spend three more decades working at it. For those who are still reading this, it means we have to fight for the rest of our lives. If this sounds depressing to you, get over it! It is the same old "depression-and-denial" response that got us into this Thirty Years' War in the first place. How do we do it? The simple answer is, "small, steady steps." What does this mean? It means accepting the challenge. It means sacrifice. Sacrifice not just today, not just until the next election is over. It means being able to sacrifice...forever, "in steady little steps." DOING something. It means considering becoming an elected official, and then DOING what is necessary to achieve that goal. It means working with, or becoming part of the media, and part of the education system. Sound hard? IT IS! Why do it? Because what you will get, in the VERY long run, is a society you can be proud to be a part of. And a nation in which you are free. ===== WHOOP-DEE-DOO by (The Old Blue Howler) [Editor's Note: Lobo (Jim Bohan) co-manages NOBAN, and is described by Fortune Magazine as "a master of the new world of cyberpolitics."] The Republican and Reform Parties' conventions are over. To our great surprise, it's Jack Dole running with Bob Perot against H. Ross Clinton and Bill Gore. And Al Kemp is running as a third party candidate. Or something like that. Given Dole's flip-flops on the gun issue and Kemp's pronouncements on the AWB in '93, I have a great feeling of no enthusiasm at all about all parties to the upcoming crime. Harry Browne? Hairy brown what? Spider? Chicken? No, a chicken would be feathery and Feathery Browne just don't scan. This guy can't even answer a simple question about is he or is he not going to take matching funds, a basic tenet of the party. How you going to trust him on anything else? My attitude toward the Presidential candidates is, "A Pox on All Their Houses." I may write in Sam Houston. However, I am going to bust my buns working on Congressional races. No matter who is President, the action is going to be in Congress as long as Newt is Speaker. My personal mission this election is to keep Congress Republican, and to add more freshman conservatives. We have a chance of replacing Vic Fazio, Dick Gephardt, David Bonior, and Martin Frost with good people. Illinois conservative Al Salvi's run for the U.S. Senate may be the most important race in the country. Salvi is a young, bright, and well-spoken, and if he can resist being corrupted by the Washington process, he just might be a future president. In Hawaii, Orson Swindle is giving Neil Abercrombie as much competition as he can handle, and there's a chance he can pull off an upset that would be as big as Foley/Nethercutt or Brooks/Stockman. Woody Jenkins (Senate) and Clyde Holloway (House) in Louisiana are serious conservatives running for open seats and would be a big help. There are many others. No matter what you think of the present Congress, there are two facts to remember: not one new piece of national gun control legislation has passed Congress, and the House passed the Ugly Gun Ban Repeal. If you want to Be Dull With Dole, Get Browne with Harry, or Be Boss With Ross, have at it. Enjoy yourself. If you're Smitten with Clinton, you're reading the wrong newsletter. Just don't forget where the real action is. Keep Rocking the House and Shaking the Senate, and we'll survive whatever proponent of the statist quo is elected. [Editor's Note: You can subscribe to the NOBAN list by sending e-mail to > listproc@mainstream.net The body of message should read subscribe noban ===== DOWN AND DIRTY DOWN UNDER: LESSONS FROM THE AUSSIE GUN BAN by In May and June of this year, you probably heard about the nearly complete firearms ban imposed on gun owners in Australia. At the time it was happening, I read only a few newspaper articles and Internet postings about it and vaguely wondered why it had happened. I've never been to Australia, but I have always thought well of the Aussies: images come to mind of dry, wide-open spaces, kangaroos, and sturdy, rugged individuals. The strains of "Waltzing Matilda" are recalled, and movies like "Crocodile Dundee" and "Quigley Down Under." To find answers to my lingering questions about the draconian gun ban, a few weeks ago I used the Alta Vista search engine on the Internet and typed in "Australia Gun Control." I was soon reading online the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH), the daily newspaper of Australia's largest city. I accessed the SMH back issue archives and read most of their daily coverage of the gun ban, from May through August. What I read in the liberal SMH, and in several other internet resources, repeatedly raised the hairs on the back of my neck. Over and over, the haunting thought that "It could happen here, it could happen to us," echoed through my mind. If you believe that United States citizens, unlike the Aussies, could never be legally disarmed over a few short months, I strongly recommend that you read the gun ban news stories in the SMH archives. I am certain that there are millions of Aussie gun owners who also had told themselves, "It can't happen here, not to us." But it did happen. And, as one pro-gun Aussie has warned us, "Look out mates, it's headed your way too!" The Australian gun control movement reminds me of a franchised business operation. Aussie anti-gunners use the same tired code words and phrases and the identical emotion-packed rhetoric of the typical American gun grabber. On Sunday, April 28, 1996, in a period of eight minutes, a solitary madman using an American AR-15 and a Chinese SKS murdered 35 men, women, and children, mostly tourists, at Port Arthur, Tasmania. The media instantly proclaimed the "end of Australian innocence." The final battle in Australia's war on guns had begun. Tasmania is an island State among the States and Territories comprising the Commonwealth of Australia. The nation was shocked, stunned, saddened, shamed, and outraged. On May 10, the Australian government decided to end citizen ownership of all auto and semi-auto rifles, including rimfires (handguns were already virtually banned)--unless a citizen could prove to the government that he or she really needs a semi-auto .22 or pump-action shotgun for feral animal control. The national health tax on gross wages will be increased to raise from 500 MILLION to ONE BILLION DOLLARS to buy back banned firearms over the next year. To pass such a massive gun ban in less than two months is utterly astonishing--unless one realizes that a carefully laid groundwork of ever-increasing gun control was already in place. For the past ten years, there has been a steady drumbeat for more and more gun laws, driven especially by several spectacular multiple-murder incidents. All that was needed was the final horrific incident at Port Arthur. The politicians' and media's exploitation of the resulting emotional tidal wave drowned all rational discussion. In the wake of Port Arthur, gun owners saw all their arguments carpet-bombed day after day in countless speeches and editorials. Those who dared to disagree with the self-righteous ban were labeled "extremists" and "Rambos," and the Australian "gun lobby" was even accused of being infiltrated by "far-right extremists, including the U.S.-based LaRouche organization." (SMH, 6/5/96) There are obvious similarities and differences between Australian and American gun control movement. This summer, Aussie gun owners lost virtually all their firearms rights, but we still have most of ours, and we're still fighting. Australians have a British heritage, speak English, are 80% urban, have a democratic form of government (dividing power between the states and the federal government), and have a literacy rate of nearly 100%. Aussie mainstream media is absorbed with "politically correct" issues such as animal rights, environmentalism, gender bias, and global warming. Historically, unlike America, Australia was not born out of a revolution, and they do not have a clear Constitutional provision for the right to keep and bear arms. However, some Aussie gun owners believe firearm ownership is a "fundamental right in law" and claim it was guaranteed under the 1688 English Bill of Rights. But Prime Minister John Howard, an anti-gun extremist, could not be stopped: "There is a deep feeling within the Australian community that we have a historic opportunity to ensure that this nation does not go down the American path." (SMH, 7/22/96) Australia's population is approximately 20 million. It is estimated that there are between 3.5 and 10 million firearms in civilian hands. In 1994, there were 522 "firearms deaths" in Australia, and 85% of those were suicides. From 1979 through 1994, "gun homicides" were usually less than 100 per year. The Australian Medical Association (AMA) is solidly behind the Aussie gun confiscation. Gun violence Down Under is often framed as a "health problem." The AMA is a vocal member of the Australian "Coalition for Gun Control, Inc.," a mirror image of America's Handgun Control, Inc. At an Aussie gun control summit in May, it was proposed that doctors and psychiatrists should be "forced to tell police the names of patients whom they consider unfit to possess guns." (SMH, 5/8/96) Ironically, Australia's doctors have embarrassing troubles of their own. A 1996 government study of medical mistakes showed that "each year 18,000 Australians were dying and 50,000 were being disabled permanently as a result of unintended injuries, called 'adverse events.'" (SMH, 5/11/96) Simply put, doctors in Australia every day are killing 49 people and permanently maiming an additional 137. In a single day, Aussie doctors accidentally wipe out more civilians than are "murdered by guns" in an entire year. From these facts, you are free to draw your own conclusions about Australia's sense of proportion and national priorities. On a similar note, the Australian Federal Police also have a bundle of trouble and in August were facing an inquiry for "alleged involvement in the Sydney drug trade, the theft of large sums of money from criminals, and the victimization of suspects." (SMH, 8/6/96) At the State level, the police were being investigated for "more than 100 deaths in which New South Wales police are suspected of being involved." At the same time, an organized group of prisoners "alleges that more than 100 prisoners were framed by police on charges that included murder." (SMH, 6/20/96) Again, one can only wonder about the gigantic hue and cry over "gun violence" in the midst of such outrageous potential scandal and possibly the worst police corruption in Australian history. There is a silent code of behavior for those of British descent or heritage, especially among the men. This code instructs men to "keep a stiff upper lip," and not show their emotions when under attack or adverse, stressful conditions. A cool, detached, quiet inner reserve. Shrill gun control advocates often use highly emotional appeals. Perhaps the Australian male gun owners, instead of honoring their code and being used by it, should have spoken up loudly and showed more passion for their convictions. Yet one wonders about their convictions when a common attitude seems to be that "There is no place for the automatic and semi-automatic weapons in general society--they are killing machines, and if people really want to muck around with them, then let them join the military." Last-minute efforts of Australia's two major pro-gun organizations, the Sporting Shooters' Association (50,000 members) and the Shooters' Party (7,500 members), were embarrassingly insufficient to stop the gun ban express train. Their frantic efforts and squabbling between themselves were like putting pennies on the railroad tracks trying to de-rail a speeding giant locomotive from hell. The two groups' combined membership is about .003% of the population (NRA membership in the U.S. is slightly more than 1%). Perhaps with an NRA equivalent membership of 200,000, and money and political savvy to match, the Aussie "gun lobby" might have stopped the ban. Huge pro-gun rallies in June--85,000 gun owners at one rally!--were simply too little and too late. The government roared on and immediately stopped the sale of guns in the state of NSW to prevent panic buying and stockpiling. In hindsight, it is easy to say that Australia's gun owners were simply too reactive, instead of being pro-active over the long term. There is an important lesson in all this. Too often, gun owners only come alive and participate when there is a crisis: a law about to be passed, or one that has just been passed that threatens their firearms rights. For the Aussie gun owners, their reactive mode was a total disaster and has cost them their guns. Public opinion slowly but relentlessly had turned against them, driven by a fraction of vocal anti-gun activists with more "fire in the belly" than a smattering of pro-gun activists. The message is loud and clear, down and dirty. Like it or not, the bottom line is that it is absolutely vital to support and maintain a "big, rich, and powerful" organization--such as the Nation Rifle Association--to intimidate opportunistic politicians. A pro-active, potent "gun lobby" is our best means to head off misguided laws and respond effectively and sensibly to occasional but inevitable tragedies. There always will be incidents that will trigger nationwide emotional tidal waves that gun control activists will exploit shamelessly in order to drown our freedoms. In the coming months Down Under, the Aussies will dutifully give up their guns and keep their stiff upper lips. It is a sad and unfair exchange, and one that could have been prevented. ___ [Author's Note: My thanks to , and to many others, for helpful background information.] ===== *****ShortShots!***** "ShortShots!"--a grab-bag of tidbits, readers' comments, useful facts, and so on. If you'd like to contribute to ShortShots!, go for it! One-line comments, short letters, brief editorials, quotes from published sources (be sure to include full credit for the source!)...whatever you feel like submitting. E-mail your submissions to: LIBRARY FOR AOL'S GUN TALK. AOL has created a separate library for the Gun Talk Board. Keyword, EXCHANGE, then click on SOFTWARE, then INTERESTS AND HOBBIES, then GUN TALK LIBRARY. See you there! -- from OLDEST ARMED CITIZEN. Mary Thompson died on Saturday, August 3, 1996, in Florida. The Social Security Administration has traced her life back to 1876, which means that she was at least 120 when she passed away, and was probably the oldest person in the United States. Mary believed the secret of long life was to "tend to your own business," but a relative also said that Mary "always kept her .22 in her bra." -- from EASY WAY TO WRITE THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA. Want a quick way to respond to anti-gun absurdity in the media? Just bookmark "The Conservative Diner." At the bottom of the first page, you will find many links to the media. Click on one, enter your message, and send that puppy on its way! TCD can be found at: -- from Jeff Dissell IF YOU WANT HARRY BROWNE to be included in the Presidential Debates, IMMEDIATELY (by September 5) mail a short, polite letter to: The Commission on Presidential Debates, 601 Thirteenth Street NW, Suite 310S, Washington, DC 20005, or call (202) 872-1020. -- from NEW JERSEY RIGHT TO CARRY. NJ State Senator Gerald Cardinale recently introduced S.1281, a real "shall issue" carry bill to reform the atrocious current situation in the State. To network with other activists to get this bill to advance, subscribe to the NJ-RKBA mailing list. Contact the list administrator, Chris BeHanna, at NEW MAGAZINE! GunGames Magazine is on your newsstand--and on the Web . "GunGames presents a more positive image for gun owners," and a lot more. -- from COOLEST FIREARMS WEB SITE? If you haven't seen it, check out Stokes--perhaps one of the premier gun sites on the net, period! ONLINE PETITION TO REPEAL THE AW BAN. The Politicsnow "Assault Weapon" Ban survey still going on! Go to and sign the petition! ===== IMPORTANT NOTE: If you change your e-mail address, please be sure to send an e-mail to or to receive POTSHOTS without interruption. Feel free to forward POTSHOTS to friends! If they wish to subscribe, they can send a note to . [End.]