P O T S H O T S The G.U.N.S. Newsletter (Gunowners Using Network Services) Volume 2, Number 3 October 21, 1996 ===== This issue's contents: OLD NUMBERS, OLD WARNINGS by Fran Haga, Ph.D. TRUE LIES: HOW GUN-GRABBERS USE "DECONSTRUCTION" TO SUBVERT THE TRUTH ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT by Dennis M. Baron ELECTION DAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1996: TRIUMPH OR TRAGEDY FOR GUN RIGHTS? by Joel Friedman (MOCHI1@ix.netcom.com) ShortShots! ===== OLD NUMBERS, OLD WARNINGS by Fran Haga, Ph.D. [Editor's Note: Dr. Fran Haga has an appointment in Criminal Justice on the faculty of The University of North Carolina at Pembroke, Pembroke, NC 28372. She is well known in the shooting community for her work with The Ladies Handgun Clinics in Raleigh, NC, and her fondness for politically incorrect weapons, including firearms. Her research on armed women is reported in Dr. Mary Zeiss Stange's opening chapter, "Arms and the Woman: A Feminist Reappraisal," in David Kopel's 1995 book, "Guns: Who Should Have Them?". Her research into the Waco disaster drew fire at the national level during the 1995 Congressional Hearings and has not yet been published. One New York democrat was apparently the last American alive to find out that Dr. Haga is a Life Member of the NRA. She is currently providing professional cyberspace crowd control as "ListMistress" for NOBAN, a coalition of gun owners who believe the Clinton gun laws directly and indirectly increase crime and should be repealed. A social statistician by training, Fran explains that high capacity magazines are essentially an educational tool so "shooters can learn to count past five!"] Have you been hearing the cheerful media chat about the importance of the female vote? How pretty Bill has got it all locked up and is only looking for more? More female voters to beguile? That's a red herring of the smelly degree, and I'll tell you why. Exactly four years ago, almost to the day, I lost my temper listening to the men rattling change and keys in their pockets, nervous counterpoint to endless political debate in smoke filled back rooms. Bush was about to lose that election, remember? We knew it then. Ever since Carter's election statistical prediction techniques have been good enough so that no election return comes as a surprise to people who own their own pollsters, and real pollsters don't care whether their results are published, only that the numbers be real. So--the people in power already know the results of votes we have yet to cast, as long as their pollsters are not lying to THEM, and as long as a significant number of pollees are not already lying to the pollsters. Four years ago I was studying that survey stuff and I finally knew enough to be dangerous. Instead of shouting at the nervous smokers, who, after all, were my friends, I went to the keyboard and our social science lab databases of national statistics and ran the numbers so that I would be able to drive my point home, straight through the insensitive souls of male gun rights advocates. How dare they overlook the sensibilities of conservative women? How dare they ignore us and leave femininity in general stamped with Rush's notions of feminazis? In the weeks before Bush's loss I was sure that ignoring female voters was going to be a costly mistake. To prove it, I ran the numbers. And guess what? I was wrong. The numbers told me that the female vote was generally steady and fairly evenly divided and likely to remain so in the splits over key issues in the races I checked. It was the male voters who were volatile, blowing with the wind. I showed my results--through gritted teeth--to the armed and politically active men around me. They patted me on the head and said that's nice, Fran, we could have told you that, but it's nice you went to school and learned all that number stuff. And then the rest of their friends went out and voted in Bill Clinton. It couldn't have been any men I know, right? When two years later the same guys rushed to the other side of the political canoe, the official number crunching crowd announced to the world in two inch tall headlines that Fran's volatile male voters would hereafter be known as "the vote of the angry white men." Of course they left my name out of it, otherwise the headlines would have read, "That Woman told you so." We've seen nothing to indicate that the female vote won't remain generally steady and fairly evenly divided this time around. The media chatter is wishful thinking, not even FROM women, but ABOUT women. My suggestion is that you ignore it. Check first and see if you are a man. If you are, it doesn't matter if you are green, white, black, blue or gray. If you are a man, it doesn't matter if you are happy, sweet, sensitive, angry, or even a little bit sicky. If you are a man, your vote is up for grabs. It's unpredictable. But if you are an armed man, the numbers show, you are more likely to go out and cast your vote. So please do. What can you teach the pollsters this time? [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 ] ===== TRUE LIES: HOW GUN-GRABBERS USE "DECONSTRUCTION" TO SUBVERT THE TRUTH ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT by Dennis M. Baron "The Second Amendment does not bestow a Constitutional right to own personal firearms." The above statement is an example of deconstruction theory. For the last 30 years, deconstruction has been a growing power in academia. Deconstructionists believe that language is everything and that the world itself is a "text." Deconstruction resolves the problem of the relation of knower to known by placing the known object at the mercy of the powerful knower. In the mind of the knower, everything is a "text" containing a "subtext." In the hands of an adept knower, the subtext becomes the text, making the "true" text a product of the knower's will. Therefore, a given document only means what the critic says it means; the original author disappears. While traditional readers (like I am) believe that language can express ideas without changing them, and that the author of a text is the source of its meaning, deconstruction challenges the idea that a text has an unchanging, unified meaning. French contemporary philosopher Jacques Derrida originated the school of deconstruction. As a strategy of analysis, deconstruction has been applied to literature, linguistics, philosophy, architecture ... and LAW. Derrida has taught at John Hopkins, Yale, and the University of California at Irvine. His theory was particularly influential at Yale, where Derrida conducted annual seminars. (Didn't Bill Clinton go to Yale Law School?) You may have read Gail Robinson's (Center to Prevent Handgun Violence) and Marion Hammer's (President of NRA) opposing commentaries on AOL in June of this year. Who better explained what the Founding Fathers meant by the Second Amendment? Mrs. Hammer defended firearms ownership by using the words of Jefferson, Adams, Mason and Lee. Ms. Robinson's entire argument for gun control was based on the Supreme Court "Miller" (1939) decision. Ms. Robinson's emphasized that after the Miller decision, several lower courts have upheld various gun control schemes. For Ms. Robinson, history and meanings before 1939 have conveniently "disappeared." Is it a "mere coincidence" that later court rulings have coincided with the rising acceptance of Derrida's deconstruction theory among liberal academics and judicial activists? Do you believe that the Miranda Ruling, the Exclusionary Rule, and the Brady Bill were what our Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the Bill of Rights? The U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear arguments on the constitutionality of the Brady Bill. Meanwhile, our "disarming" President of the United States is telling the masses that the Second Amendment is about duck hunting. We might have expected this trendy new reading of the "subtext" of the Second Amendment from the current Administration. After all, the former Chief of White House Security (an ex-bar bouncer) has been widely quoted as saying, "Truth is whatever you want it to be." The truth is (and yes, Virginia, there is TRUTH), the Bill of Rights does not "grant" rights from the government to the people. The Bill of Rights is a list of fundamental, inalienable rights that were already in place, given by mankind's Creator. These rights define what it means to be a free and independent people, and exist to ensure that government governs ONLY with the consent of the people. Our Founding Fathers knew that a government that did not trust law-abiding citizens with the means of self defense was not itself worthy of trust. Laws that disarm honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master--not the servant--of the people. "The trash heap of history is filled to overflowing with once free peoples who were first disarmed, then tyrannized, then obliterated." And that, dear friends, is one "subtext" the gun-grabber's don't want you to read. ===== ELECTION DAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1996: TRIUMPH OR TRAGEDY FOR GUN RIGHTS? 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 friend recently told me some personal stories that are typical of what we all face when we try to do election work and make a difference. The first story is about a man who is an NRA Life Member. He simply wants to know why he can't just send the NRA a check, and let the NRA "take care of the rest." Those of us who frequently contribute money to the NRA sometimes feel the same way, but this attitude's time has long passed. In today's climate, with bigger anti-gun forces working harder and smarter, and from city to city, there is no way the NRA's relatively small staff can even begin to address all the problems we face. Downsizing for efficiency is still a major trend of the 90's. Having a salaried NRA staff in every U.S. city is clearly not practical. From now on, the only way we are going to keep our firearms rights is to go out and work to keep them OURSELVES, in Members' Councils, and as individuals. Sending money to the NRA is always good, but YOU must get personally involved at the LOCAL level. Nationally, the NRA can guide us and plan our strategies. The second story is a zinger. It is about a fellow who has a large, valuable firearms collection (over 20, and therefore a prime target for the planned "arsenal" license, if we lose the election). He tells you that he would really like to help you walk precincts this weekend, but he says he has already made plans to take his wife and children to the movies and dinner. Or to the park. This story (excuse) suddenly made me wonder if we are going to lose our freedom because a good father and husband just wants to be with his family. But I also ask, how can this otherwise intelligent family man be so simple-minded and preoccupied that he can't prioritize, and see the handwriting on the wall? The thought of this haunts me. The third story comes from a 1992 book called, "The 10 Dumbest Mistakes Smart People Make and How To Avoid Them." PERFECTIONISM is one of the "Big Ten" mistakes, and can be applied to otherwise well-meaning gun owners. While "it certainly sounds admirable to set high standards...perfectionism is dumb when the desire to be 100 percent perfect leads to zero accomplishment." To vote for a politician who reflects your own high principles but who does not have any chance of winning is a prime example of perfectionism. A vote for a candidate that cannot win is "zero accomplishment." You allow your enemy to triumph if you use your own righteous principles and perfectionism AGAINST YOURSELF. Like it or not, reality tells us that "life is messy." Only angels are perfect, but I haven't seen any angels yet. Have you? Your only real choice in this election is to be part of the problem, or part of the solution. A major part of the problem is, of course, one William Jefferson Clinton, the most in-your-face, anti-gun President in U.S. history. Unless you are a hermit, you already know this man will say and do just about anything to disarm the American population. Sarah Brady, head of the Gun Control Lobby, was a featured speaker at the Democratic Convention! Her husband, James Brady, has just been awarded the Medal of Freedom! Clinton now has the coveted endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police, and is arrogantly campaigning every day for MORE gun control. Another piece of the problem is named Ross Perot. Personally, I have learned a lot from Ross. In 1992, I voted for him because I was unhappy with President George Bush, and wanted to "make a statement." The 23 million of us who voted for Perot actually put Clinton in office. I am truly sorry, and I apologize. It was a mistake that I will not make again. "Once forgiven, twice there is no excuse." Still another part of the problem is Harry Browne, the Libertarian Candidate. Harry is a problem inside another problem: for 30 years, the Libertarian Party has not been able to garner what Ross Perot was able to do in less than one year. Translation: THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY THE LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATE WILL WIN, and every vote for Harry is a vote for President Clinton...and guaranteed gun control. There are three candidates running against Clinton. How are we going to stop him from winning? I would vote for my dog if I thought he could beat all the candidates. The next best thing we can do is elect a veto-proof Congress, but are enough of us prepared to work on truly making SURE this happens? Our opponents are certainly prepared, and have been at hard at work for the last 2 years. In a presidential election, MORE people come out to vote. Our opposition is thoroughly angry and frightened--just like we were when we elected a new Congress in 1994. I have saved the best (and worst) for last. The bad news is that there will be NOTHING we can do about Clinton's horrific, anti-gun agenda if we cannot elect a veto-proof Congress. The good news is that there is one man who has a chance of beating President Clinton. Yep, it's the Man from Kansas. Bob Dole. He has the Party, the money, and the name recognition to pull it off. He has been a politician for many years and understands the game. But Dole is also the man who has flip-flopped on us. So what? This was just a TACTIC to block another tactic President Clinton could have used. Clinton now has been stopped from saying that Bob Dole "wants (so-called) assault weapons ON the streets." Further, if Dole is elected, and an AW Ban repeal comes to his Presidential desk, what will he ultimately do? No one knows. I think the "no one knows" scenario is far superior to Clinton's guaranteed "I'm gonna get you!" In conclusion, I am asking that you do not confuse TACTICS with STRATEGY. When you vote for a candidate that can't possibly win, yes, you get to be RIGHT, and you have stood perfectly by your beloved principles. But what you have also done is to confuse a temporary, small, distasteful TACTIC with a large, more powerful overall STRATEGY. And STRATEGY is the PLAN we use to WIN the war. Bottom line: Our STRATEGY is to beat Clinton. Voting for Bob Dole will beat Bill Clinton. Voting for Bob Dole is NOT an issue about principle. It is an in-the-trenches TACTIC. As someone who is going to be spending the rest of your life working to improve our society, you might as well become familiar with making occasional lateral moves to insure a STRATEGY of over-all progress. Our war for firearms rights will NOT be won by a single battle; it is a PROCESS of "steady little steps." This election is a clear opportunity for us to at least hold the line, and perhaps even make some small progress. It might allow us time to work on getting the next generation in the media, education, and bureaucracy to understand how the world should really be. Our tactic in the voting booth should NOT be to "send a message." Making a statement will NOT not win the war. Voting for Bob Dole is the answer to the question, "What tactic do we now use to further a winning STRATEGY?" On the other hand, NOT voting for Bob Dole is the answer to the question, "What tactic can we use to damage or destroy our overall strategy?" If you still say that NOT voting for Bob Dole is a matter of principle, then you have not asked yourself the right question. ===== *****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: NEW AOL "GUN CHAT ROOM!" AOL has just created a new, permanent Gun Talk Room, with a capacity for 50 people. This public room is open every Wednesday night, 9:00 to 10:00 p.m., eastern time, and is hosted by AOL. Keyword: EXCHANGE, then click on the small CHAT icon at the bottom of the screen; then click on INTERESTS & HOBBIES, and you're there! (G.U.N.S. continues to meet in a Private Room on AOL every Sunday evening at 8:00 p.m. eastern time. Path: Keyword, CHAT [or PEOPLE], then click on ROOMS, then click on PRIVATE ROOM, then type in "Right2beararms.") -- from SMOKER GUN BAN? President Clinton has just asked his drug policy chief to "develop within 90 days a plan requiring that young people be tested for drugs as a condition of obtaining driver's licenses." Federal firearm purchase applications already ask if you are a user of, or addicted to, any narcotic drug or other controlled substance. A few weeks ago, Clinton declared that tobacco is a drug, subject to regulation by the Food and Drug Administration. Could a citizen be denied buying a firearm if they "use" nicotine? At BATF headquarters in Washington, a spokesman said, "It would be speculative to comment." The NRA's Tanya Metaksa told the Wall Street Journal (September 9, 1996) that "This isn't rumor-mongering." Stay tuned. -- from IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID! "That's what they had posted on the walls in Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign headquarters. Bill and his cronies paid homage to that statement just long enough to get elected. Today I have a similar slogan we firearms activists need to post on our own walls before November 5: 'IT'S THE SUPREME COURT, STUPID!' Some quick facts: The President appoints all new Supreme Court Justices. They are appointed for LIFE. The Court has the ultimate power in deciding what is, and what is not, constitutional. Justices are NOT obligated to consider historical facts in their decisions. The Court has NOT considered the Second Amendment in one of their decisions since the first third of this century. Folks, we're over-ripe for a Big Decision .... I suspect you already know where this is leading, so I'll just go ahead and admit it! Bob Dole. There, I said it. I know some of you are going to have to hold your nose to vote for him. So I gently recommend that you visit the local hardware store, and purchase the biggest, strongest clothespin you can find. That way, both your hands will be free to vote with." -- from ANTIQUE FIREARMS WEB SITE. "I'd like to invite you to visit and review my web site on antique guns--primary emphasis on cartridge handguns, Civil War to turn of the century. It's the online version of my quarterly publication- part catalog, part journal, 'Old Town Station Dispatch.'" -- from Jim Supica DISARMING BRAVEHEART. In the wake of the Dunblane massacre in Scotland, Britain will soon have some of the "toughest gun control laws in the world." About 80 per cent of legally held handguns will have to be turned in for destruction in the New Year. Those caught breaking the new regulations could be sent to prison for up to 10 years. No compensation is planned for gun shop owners, and as many as 2,000 gun clubs might have to close. Source: London Electronic Telegraph, October 17, 1996. -- from DISARMING MATILDA, CONTINUED. In addition to Australia's recent national ban on semi-automatic firearms, New South Wales police now want the power to "detain and interrogate suspects for up to 12 hours without laying charges." The proposed new laws have "enraged the legal fraternity." The NSW Bar Association "expressed fears the [new powers] would be abused by police who would detain people without reasonable grounds and deny them their civil liberties." Sydney Morning Herald, October 15, 1996. -- from NEWS MEDIA--ANOTHER POLITICAL PARTY? "I am a gun collector who feels like the news media, who are 90 per cent Clinton supporters, have an agenda of lying to the public through the live media, which we do not get to answer on the same media, about gun control. I feel the news media should be licensed as a political party as they try to change public opinion through their use of the air ways. Most of the news people are hippies left over from the sixties who have cut their hair and put on clean clothes, but have the same agenda they had then. Bill Clinton is still the same person now as he was then. I can only hope we still have our country in the next few years. Remember who said "we will bury you" without a shot being fired from inside your own country, then beat his shoe on the table at the United Nations. Makes you think." -- from A NO-BRAINER, OR JUST NO BRAINS? "I'm not accustomed to name-calling, but lately U.S. gun owners seem to be THE stupidest group around! Countless anti-gun bills abound, but most gun owners won't even look out the window to see that the sky is falling! After spending thousands on their gun collections, some seem to say, 'Let the other guy fight my fight.' Imagine a room filled with 100 gun owners: How many do you suppose will end up getting involved by simply writing or calling their elected officials? Let me use all the fingers on my right hand to count them. Hmm--I have several fingers left over! It is estimated that firearms are in 50 per cent or more of American households. If just 10 per cent of firearms owners would get off their collective ass and get vocal, what a difference we could make!" -- from Paul Gallant, O.D. <70274.1222@CompuServe.COM> YOUR OWN "GUN NEWS" E-MAIL SERVICE VIA AOL. If you want breaking news on guns and gun politics from mainstream news services, you can have all the articles immediately and automatically e-mailed to you by using AOL's news service. Keyword: NEWSPROFILES, then fill in your personal "profile." Suggested search words for a "gun news" profile: Charles Schumer, gun control, assault weapons, Saturday Night Special, Sarah Brady, HCI, Handgun Control, NRA, National Rifle Association, Tanya Metaksa, Marion Hammer, Wayne LaPierre, handguns, handgun, cop killer bullets. -- from ===== 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.]