

From the Radio Free Michigan archives



ftp://141.209.3.26/pub/patriot



If you have any other files you'd like to contribute, e-mail them to

bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu.

------------------------------------------------





\\\Toward The Gun Rights Movement\\\



Charles Curley







	\\"Never yield ground. It is cheaper to hold what you have

than to retake what you have lost."\\

General George S. Patton, Jr.





	In this essay I intend to show that the old arguments for

gun ownership should be discarded and replaced. I intend to show

that they have failed to defend gun ownership. I intend to

provide two sound bases upon which solid, effective arguments for

gun ownership rights may be made. I also propose that the gun

rights movement take the offensive, and show specific proposals

that will put the prohibitionists on the defensive, where they

belong.



	In the beginning of the twentieth century, anyone not

obviously an incompetent or criminal could and often did purchase

guns and wear them abroad routinely. Today, within a generation's

lifetime, gun owners are rare, and discriminated against by

government and citizens. Worse, they stand to lose the few rights

they have left to a government which acts like it wants to reduce

them under absolute despotism.



	\\"And I cannot see, why arms should be denied to any man

who is not a slave, since they are the only true badges of

liberty...."\\

Andrew Fletcher

\\A Discourse of Government with Relation to Militias\\

1698



	In brief, the existing legislation is a patchwork quilt: it

varies from state to state, often from county to county within

the same state, and certainly from city to city. Compare, say,

Fort Collins, Colorado, with New Jersey.

	In Fort Collins, a man (or woman, for that matter) may

legally purchase and immediately walk abroad with a loaded .357

revolver clearly in sight. The police may give that person some

grief, but legally there is nothing they can do.

	In New Jersey, the would-be gun owner must get a special ID

card from the local police. This -- if permission is granted --

will permit him to purchase rifles or ammunition. However, if he

wishes to purchase a pistol, he must again apply for permission.

The police department will keep his ID card for however long it

takes them to do a background check. If they don't lose the card,

and if the background check turns up nothing on the supplicant's

record, he is given back his card and a special receipt which

will allow him to buy one -- count it, one -- handgun. And he had

better not even apply for another handgun permission for several

months.

	Nationally, George Bush and the Republican Party have

abandoned us. As though to underscore the point, in California,

"conservative" Republican governor George Dukmejian has also sold

the gun rights movement out. The attitude in the Republican Party

is that the gun owners have no place else to go. So, in their mad

scramble to occupy the political center, the Republicans abandon

those people whom they perceive to be on the fringes: the gun

owners.

	We're losing ground, folks. Does \\anyone\\ out there,

\\anywhere\\, know of \\anyplace\\ where it is seriously being

proposed that the existing gun legislation be repealed?

	If the thought that existing gun legislation \\can\\ be re-

pealed, that it \\should\\ be repealed, is a shock to you, then

consider just how accustomed to remaining on the defensive you --

and the rest of the gun rights movement -- have become.



	\\"When caught under fire, particularly of artillery,

advance out of it; never retreat from it. Artillery very seldom

shortens its range."\\

General George S. Patton, Jr.



	There are three main arguments which have been used in the

past. I call these the Second Amendment Argument, the Hunter

Argument, and the Crime Argument.



	The Second Amendment Argument is based on the Second

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It says that

the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. This is plain,

simple clear language, according to those who make it, and it is

-- to everyone who isn't a lawyer. Unfortunately, it is not

enough.



	First, the Second Amendment can be repealed tomorrow, and

would be if Senator Kennedy had his way. Certainly, it makes life

difficult for the prohibitionists, but they can and do get around

it. So they won't seek its repeal tomorrow.



	Even without repeal, the Second Amendment is effectively

dead anyway. Like almost all of the provisions in the Consti-

tution intended to limit the powers of the Federal government, it

is being ignored. The only parts of the Constitution which are

not being ignored are those which can be used to extend its power

(such as the Interstate Commerce clause, the Necessary and Proper

Powers clause, and the Income Tax Amendment) and those which

pertain only to the outward form of the government.

	In terms of defending our rights, the Constitution is a dead

letter law, and it is about time the gun rights movement woke up

and smelled the coffee.



	But if the Second Amendment were repealed tomorrow, how

would you argue for the right to own guns? On what then would you

base the right to own guns? \\Why\\ shall the right to bear arms

not be infringed?

	Unfortunately, most gun owners aren't willing to defend the

Second Amendment in a more broad context. They are constitutional

fundamentalists. They take the Constitution as holy writ, just as

the religious fundamentalists take their Bible, their Koran, or

their \\Das Capital\\, as absolute writ. Further, the

constitutional fundamentalists, like their religious

counterparts, can't understand why anyone else won't also accept

it as writ. But that failure of other people to accept the Second

Amendment as holy writ means that the argument is over, and that

the gun owner has lost.



	The Hunter Argument states that there are "legitimate

sporting uses" for firearms, and this may even be so. But this

argument also has let us down, and the concept of "legitimate

sporting uses" has become a noose around the necks of us all.



	The Hunter Argument has had the effect of suggesting that

the only "legitimate" reason to own firearms is to hunt, an

expensive sport. Further, far more people who live in the country

hunt than city dwellers. The effect of this argument is to make

gun owning appear to the city dweller to be the special province

of a rural elite. His understandable response, however ignorant,

is to inquire, why the hell should he stick his neck out for a

lousy farmer?



	Worse, the Bambiists would like to take our guns away

precisely because -- according to the Hunter Argument -- it is

the only "legitimate" use for the things. \\They\\ think it isn't

legitimate at all. How's that for a winning argument?

	Sure, you and I know enough about ecology (the science, not

the nut cult) to know that this argument is a crock of

fertilizer. But the Bambiists don't, and they can scream louder

than we have so far.



	Let us also abandon a desperate ploy, and admit that hunting

deer with AK-47s is about as sporting as fishing for trout with

hand grenades. Yet these are the guns that are currently under

attack by the prohibitionists. Even an armaments illiterate can

see through trying to defend defense rifles ("assault rifles")

by the Hunter Argument.



	The Hunter Argument has been a disaster also because it

admits of a false distinction between weapons: some have "legiti-

mate sporting uses"; others do not. If only some weapons are

legitimate, then logically the prohibitionists can take away the

rest. The problem is, \\they\\ get to define which ones they will

confiscate.



	\\"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang

separately."\\

Benjamin Franklin

At the signing of the Declaration



	By defending only a few weapons, the makers of the Hunter

Argument leave the gun rights movement open to division and

conquest. One should be prepared to defend the right to own

\\any\\ weapon, whether one has a use for it or not. The pagans

of the middle ages had a saying which applies here: "If they come

for me in the night, they'll come for you in the morning." So, Mr

Hunter, if they come for my defense rifle in the night, who will

be around to defend your bolt action in the morning? And what

happens when they come for your shotgun in the afternoon, Mr Trap

Shooter?



	The Crime Argument is something like this: if the government

would only enforce the existing laws, criminals wouldn't use guns

in their crimes, and so we could keep our guns.

	This is your basic \\non sequitur\\. In fact, it proves far

too much. There is a very clear cause and effect relationship

between efficient law enforcement and gun ownership: governments

which enforce their laws efficiently prohibit guns. No-one ever

called the Gestapo lazy!

	This argument implies that the choice is between: felons

having guns, together with high crime; and felons not having

guns, correlated with low crime. This is a false choice: felons

will always have guns. If alcohol prohibition, cocaine

prohibition and gold prohibition have all failed to keep those

respective materials out of the hands of people, then so also

would gun prohibition fail to keep guns out of the hands of

felons. If gun prohibition would fail to keep guns out of the

hands of convicted felons, then so must any lesser effort. The

reality is that we can have a society in which police and felons

have guns, and citizens do not; or we can have a society in which

everybody, including felons, has guns. This writer's preference

is the latter.



	One of the most hideous failures of the gun rights movement

is the taking of a kneejerk "kill the coke snorters" attitude.

Aside from losing a potential ally, it puts the gun rights

movement in the position of supporting one of its most deadly

enemies: the drug prohibitionists. 

	A number of drug prohibitionists are now calling for the

prohibition of defense rifles on the (erroneous) grounds that

these are the weapons of choice of drug dealers. Why give

ammunition (literally) to your enemies? In addition, this call is

base on the erroneous theory that the drug dealers use Uzis and

Kalishnikovs. Outside of Miami Vice and other work of fantasy, it

just ain't so.



	If the drug dealers are going to ignore the drug prohibi-

tion, then what leap of faith in human nature leads anyone to

think that they would obey a gun prohibition? These people are

accustomed to bringing tons of illegal material into the US

\\every day\\. What's a few ton of defense rifles here and there?

And if defense rifles, why not full auto weapons, grenade

launchers, howitzers, RPGs or tactical nukes? Imagine that

William Bennett's worst nightmares are true, and then imagine

that these people start to buy up weapons on the world arms

market and ship their purchases to the U.S.

	You, dear reader, know that this is so. I know that this is

so. Fine, let's turn it around: Why are you -- worried about

having your chosen vice prohibited -- arguing that someone else's

vice should be prohibited? Worse, if you know damn well that a

gun prohibition wouldn't work, what makes you think that a drug

prohibition ever would?

	(Lest I be accused of being a wacked out druggie commie, or

a front man for the Medellin Cartel, or some such twaddle, let me

point out that there is a distinction between opposing prohi-

bition of a thing and advocating the use of the same thing. And

if anyone out there still thinks that drug prohibition is

working, maybe we should inquire just what \\he's\\ been smoking,

ingesting, or injecting.)



	If the Second Amendment, the Hunter and the Crime Arguments

have failed, with what can we replace them? Two arguments, of

which one is a special case of the other.



	The key argument is that of Self Defense. Every human in the

world has the right to defend herself and that which she has

produced or acquired in voluntary trade. That concept was clearly

in Thomas Jefferson's mind when he wrote that all men have the

right to life, liberty and property. Invert this argument: if one

does not have the right to self defense, then one has not the

right to anything else. How can one keep a right \\except\\ by

defending it?

	Do you have the right to life? \\Defend it!\\

	Do you have the right to liberty? \\Defend it!\\

	Do you have the right to property? \\Defend it!\\

	Or do you expect someone else to defend it?

	If so, whom? A hired guard? They can be bribed, and can turn

coward in the crunch.

	A government policeman? Do you really think that, given the

choice between defending your rights and confiscating your guns,

a cop will do the former? If you know of any that will, hang on

to him, he's rare. Note that most gun prohibition laws exclude

the police from their effects. Why should the police be better

armed than the citizen? Remember, most \\police states\\ are run

by the \\police\\.



	Any statute which exempts the police from its constrictions

creates a specialized class of privileged persons. Police who may

bear arms where citizens may not have been granted a patent of

nobility, although the term is not used. It is precisely the

lawful bearing of arms which distinguishes the nobility from

serfs, from feudal Europe to Tokugawa Japan.

	Furthermore, no-one has quite as much self interest as you

do in defending yourself.



	When the revolver first showed up in the American West, it

was called the "great equalizer". It has been said that God

created men, and Colonel Sam Colt made them equal. Quite so: he

made all men equal, in the sense in which Jefferson intended the

phrase. The gun makes it possible for the puny store clerk to

stand up to the professional hoodlum.

	It makes the poor person in the slums of East Los Angeles

equal to the rich man in Bel Aire. Not in the political sense

that each has an equally valid vote, but rather in the more

important sense that each has the equal ability to defend himself

and his loved ones. The rich man can, if he wishes, hide behind

his kevlar padded Mercedes, his Bel Aire Patrol, his electrified

fence. The poor man in Harlem cannot. Yet a decent revolver can

be used by either to defend himself.



	What was true in the 1890s is equally true in the 1990s. The

great equalizer makes women physically equal to men, if they know

how to use it. The way to stop rape and other violent crimes is

to encourage peaceful citizens to own and use guns. Armed women

equal polite men.



	The concept of "social responsibility" has been corrupted by

people who make it appear to be simply another excuse for a

welfare state. Yet, let us turn it around: isn't it an

irresponsible act to leave your home undefended? Not only is it

irresponsible to yourself, but it is socially irresponsible. If

your home is burglarized, or you are mugged, have you not

encouraged someone to live by looting others? Have you not also

cost your fellow taxpayers the followup by your local police

department. It is socially irresponsible \\not\\ to defend

yourself.



	There is a more practical reason to defend yourself: quite

likely, no-one else will! There have been a number of cases at

law recently in which the courts have held that the police are

under no obligation to defend you!

	In addition, pure government inefficiency keeps them from

providing any credible defense. Denver, Colorado, for example,

has a 38% police response rate. That means that Denver PD

responds to 38% of the calls for help that they get. And, if they

do respond, how long will it take them to get there? You could be

dead or raped before they arrive, if they ever do.

	Your choice: 38% or .38 Special!



	The best way to handle any given crime is to prevent it.

Never mind dealing with it afterwards, stop it before it happens.

This concept does not mean that you should only buy guns. Burglar

alarms, bright lights and martial arts are all effective in

different circumstances. But on a typical city street, or in

almost any other public place, the presence of an armed civilian

is probably the most effective crime preventive known to man.

	There is no way we could possibly know, for example, how

many shop holdups have been prevented simply because an armed

customer walked into the store. How many future rapes have been

prevented because one woman had the wherewithal to kill a would-

be rapist? We'll never know, but for each would-be rapist shot

and killed, it is at least one.



	Consider the events that are being used to scare the public

into supporting a ban on semiautomatic rifles. Suppose some wacko

with an AK-47 opened fire on an armed population? How long would

he last? A lot less time than he will last in an unarmed

population! You will notice that Mr Patrick Purdy had enough

sense not to take on a Long Beach, Bronx or Oakland schoolyard.

In any of these, the students would probably have returned fire!

	Which would you rather hijack: an airplane full of people,

some of whom were armed? Most of whom were armed? Or would you

rather hijack an airplane full of people guaranteed by the United

States Government to be completely disarmed?



	This line of reasoning has the side benefit of disengaging

us from a futile side argument. Both prohibitionists and gun

owners want to reduce crime. The one side wants to prohibit

firearms and other weapons, a futile approach at best. The other

side acts like it wants to deal more vengefully after the event.

Both approaches are non sequiturs. The way to prevent crime is:

\\to prevent crime!\\

	More jail cells, more court rooms, and more police deal only

with the aftermath of a crime. These things at best do nothing

for the victim of the crime. They cannot restore to the victim

the \\status quo ante\\. Under the current system, they make no

attempt to do so.

	The way for the gun rights movement to win the argument is

to encourage more people to be prepared to \\prevent\\ crime, by

both active and passive measures. These measures include, but are

not limited to, owning, carrying, and knowing the use of

firearms.





	\\"If their ballots aren't secured by arms, they are

worthless."\\

H. Beam Piper



	The second Argument is a special case of the Right to Self

Defense. It is the Right to Rebellion, so eloquently described by

Thomas Jefferson.



	"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men

are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator

with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life,

Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, That to secure these

rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their

just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever

any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it

is the Right of the People to Alter or Abolish it,... But

when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing

invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them

under absolute Despotism, \\it is their right, it is their

duty, to throw off such Government and to provide new Guards

for their future security.\\" (Emphasis added.)



	When any thing which men produce for a purpose fails in that

purpose, it is replaced with something better. The old thing is

retired, or perhaps used for something else. This is true of

tools, automobiles and bathtubs. There is no difference between

these things and governments. They are formed to protect our

rights. When they fail to do so, it is up to us to get rid of

them and replace them with something else. If necessary, by

rebellion.

	It follows from this, then, that a sure indication of "a

design to reduce them under absolute Despotism" is an effort to

remove from the people their means of "throwing off such

Government": their weapons, their guns. Like the bumper sticker

says, "Fear the government that fears your guns".



	The world has shown shock at the events in China last

summer, which culminated in the Tiananmen Square Massacre. Here

we have the "Peoples' Liberation Army" killing the people,

including hundreds of Army deserters who joined the protesters

when the Army was first sent in.

	Yet those people fought bravely against horrible odds, for

the benefit of a few television cameras, and for such uncommunist

ideals as free markets and the right to choose who will "defend"

their rights. It is no coincidence that the Goddess of Freedom

strongly resembles the Statue of Liberty.

	What will it take to prevent a Tiananmen Square here in this

country?



	\\"Only an armed people can be the real bulwark of popular

liberty."\\

V. I. Lenin

Geneva, Wednesday, January 25, (12)

Vperyod No. 4, January 31 (18), 1905



	Yet consider how differently things turned out in Rumania

six months later. That tale begins in World War II, when the US

manufactured a singularly aptly named pistol, the Liberator. It

was a single shot .45, and very inexpensive to make. The

instructions were done entirely in picture form, and these things

were dropped by the millions all over Eastern Europe.

	The instructions show how the gun was to be used. You sneak

up on a German soldier, blow his brains out with the Liberator.

Then you take his rifle, thereby anticipating Che Guevara's

dictum that a guerrilla never goes into battle unless he knows he

will come out of it with more supplies than he went in. Now you

know why you saw so many WW II German Mausers in the newspaper

accounts of the Romanian Revolution. Those pistols liberated

Rumania not once, but twice!



	\\"Government being instituted for the common benefit,

protection, and security, of the whole community, and not

for the private interest or emolument of any one man,

family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of

government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly

endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual,

the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or

establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance

against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish,

and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."\\

New Hampshire Constitution

Part I, Art. 10th.



	I said earlier that the Right to Rebellion is a special case

of the Right to Self Defense. The most horrible destruction the

world has ever seen has been perpetrated by governments. I am not

referring to wars, but to the organized efforts of governments to

destroy their "own" citizens: the Soviet pogroms against the

kulaks, the Nazi death camps for "inferior races", and so on,

\\ad nauseam\\. If you have the right to defense against

\\anything\\, it is the right to defense against government.

	If you think it can't happen here, you are wrong. It has.

Consider the hounding of the Mormons, or the destruction of the

American Indians. Consider that it was against local governments

that the Civil Rights movement needed the most protection. Who's

next?



	This is not to say that I would argue in favor of such a

rebellion at this time. We do have alternatives, some of which I

will describe later. In any case, if there were a rebellion now

it would fail. Either it would never get the popular support it

would need, or else the resulting government would be worse than

what we have now.



	These arguments can be made to support the cause of gun

rights. 



	First, they are consistent. With one argument a special case

of the other, they must be consistent. This means that the

neither argument can be turned against the other, as the Hunter

Argument is used to subvert the Second Amendment Argument.



	It also means that we can and will defend \\all\\ weapons.

Not just our own preferred rifles or handguns, but a lot of

weapons which one or another of us may not prefer. Even if I am a

hunter, interested only in sporting rifles, I can and will use

these arguments to support your right to own a defense rifle.



	The Self Defense Argument will bring a lot of people into

the gun rights movement. Furthermore, it will give a lot of

people a very good reason to get involved in the movement.

	The tide will have turned in our favor the day some black

girl from Washington, DC, stands up to Senator Kennedy and says,

"Hey, why do you want to take away my self defense? I thought you

were in favor of the poor, man." We will have won the day that

such an event gets national television coverage.



	If there is any group of people, any so-called minority,

which has a vested interest in gun ownership, it is women. In

addition to every crime problem which plagues men, women must

also deal with rape. The National Organization for Women should

be calling for unhampered and simple access to guns, so that

their members can defend themselves.



	Let's face it, not many people hunt. Not many people have

the emotional attachment to the Second Amendment that the

constitutional fundamentalists have. But a lot of people do have

homes and loved ones to protect. The "average guy" on the street

will be far more interested in owning guns if he sees them as a

means of self defense.



	\\"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids both the rich

and the poor from sleeping under bridges..."\\

Anatole France



	The rich have definite advantages when it comes to self

defense. They can live in exclusive neighborhoods with guards,

put in expensive burglar alarms, and hire drivers to whisk them

safely to their appointments. The poor cannot. The poor also tend

to rent their homes, rather than own them. This gives them no

reason to improve the burglar proofing of their homes. A handgun

is inexpensive, and easily carried to a new home -- or anywhere

else.



	Furthermore, poor people know this. What do they hunt in

East Los Angeles? Cockroaches? No, they're buying guns for self

defense, against the drug dealers, against the freelance

socialists, and against the few corrupt and racist cops. They'll

buy their guns illegally if need be, and who can blame them?

	By emphasizing the contrast between the poor gun owner and

the wealthy prohibitionists, we can have a positive effect. If

nothing else, we can make liberal prohibitionists feel guilty for

oppressing the poor by trying to take away their guns.



	Another market for the gun rights movement is the

minorities, such as blacks or Vietnamese. Unfortunately, these

people are discriminated against still by the official system,

and they know it. Given the "great equalizer", a black man or a

Latino woman can defend himself or herself without recourse to

the official system. But how many state laws permit ownership

only to a "person suitable to be so licensed"?



	Indeed, one wonders whether the traditional gun movement

leadership is \\deliberately\\ ignoring a potentially vast market

for the gun rights movement. For whatever reason, the gun

movement today consists largely of white middle class males. Why

this is so, I don't know. But if you want to keep your guns, it

is going to have to change.

	This is not to argue that the gun movement has been racist.

Perhaps the existing gun movement leadership \\does\\ realize how

many new people would come into the movement, and doesn't want to

give up their leadership positions. If this is so, then they

would obviously prefer to give up their guns than their

"leadership" positions.



	If you are trying to hang on to your semi-auto rifle, you

should pick up on the Self Defense Argument. If, as the drug

warriors are (erroneously) claiming, the semi-auto rifle is the

weapon of choice of the drug dealers, why can't I own one to

defend myself against drug crazies? Why should the law allow

these hooligans to be better armed than I am (for that is the

effect of any form of gun prohibition)?



	\\"The tree of liberty is watered with the blood of tyrants

and patriots."\\

Thomas Jefferson



	In addition to the Right to Self Defense, the Right to

Rebellion puts the defense rifle on a very clear footing. The

prohibitionists are correct on one point: the defense rifle has

but one target: human beings. And that is exactly why we have the

right to keep them. They are very effective against criminals,

including criminal politicians and criminal bureaucrats. If we

ever do have another rebellion in this country, "We the People"

are going to need every defense rifle we've got!

	It is worth noting that the last thing that the Supreme

Court has had to say on the Second Amendment is that it is

precisely military weapons which are protected by it, not

sporting guns.



	\\"Wars are not won by defensive tactics."\\

General George S. Patton, Jr.



	It is time for the gun rights movement to take the

offensive.



	First, while defense is easier than offense, it is

impossible to win on defense alone. That simple truth is the

origin of the aphorism that the best defense is a good offense. A

good offensive will tie up your opponents' assets to the point

where he cannot act against you. He must put effort into

defending himself.

	The gun rights movement must take the offensive simply in

order to retain the few rights we have left, never mind to regain

those lost already!



	General George Patton was perhaps the best American general

in the Twentieth Century. Certainly his German opponents thought

so, and even Stalin praised him. Patton continually emphasized

offense over defense. Even when an offensive would be costly, he

thought, it could save lives in the end by shortening the war.

Hence his frustration when his Third Army was told to take the

defensive in France.

	Similarly, gun owners are frustrated with the defensive

action they have been fighting. The recent defection of the

Republican Party ought to clearly show the folly of that plan of

action.



	\\"Never attack where the enemy expects you to come."\\

General George S. Patton, Jr.



	We can and should make the prohibitionists too busy

defending themselves to take any further action against us. By

taking the offensive, we command the rules of the game and we set

the agenda. We must make the prohibitionists react to us, not the

other way around.



	Besides, making the prohibitionists scramble is more fun

than doing it ourselves!



	\\"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the

problem."\\

Huey Newton



	There are three things we must do. Everything else in the

rest of this essay is optional, but these three things are the

ones without which we cannot succeed. They are, in order of

importance: organize, organize, and organize. The forms and

outward appearances of the various organizations will be as

varied as their objectives. Organizations, new or extant, serve

but one purpose: to make it possible to execute the necessary

strategies and tactics. Form must follow function.



	\\"Plans must be simple and flexible. Actually, they form

only a datum plane from which you build as necessity directs or

opportunity offers. They should be made by the people who are

going to execute them."\\

General George S. Patton, Jr.



	There are plenty of tactics and strategies we can pursue.

The list here is just a starting point, a series of suggestions.

You can adapt some of the things on it to your own situation, or

you can come up with something entirely new.



	\\"Let the danger be never so great, there is a possibility

of safety while men have life, hands, arms, and courage to use

them; but that people must certainly perish, who tamely suffer

themselves to be oppressed...."\\

Algernon Sidney



	The first place to go to work is with gun owners themselves.

For some strange reason, Americans almost have to be browbeaten

into protecting their rights. Person to person contact is far and

away the most effective way to get your point across. In

Colorado, there is a gun show almost every weekend of the year,

sometimes two or three in a weekend. The Firearms Coalition of

Colorado has had a table at almost every gun show since it was

formed in 1989. Our people don't just sit behind their table,

they stand in front of it and practically forcefeed literature to

people as they pass by. This gets the word out to the people with

the greatest interest in gun owners' rights. It also gets

donations, especially after a success in a legislative battle.

But that table is the easy part.

	The Coalition is a lean, mean operation. If you don't want

to work with us, form your own organization (several people

have). We have no newsletter. They're expensive and slow.

Instead, we have a 24 hour multi-line hotline which we advertise

heavily: 303/369-GUNS. Feel free to call it. If we have a

letterhead, I haven't seen it yet: we communicate by telephone.

We also have no bureaucracy and no paid staff. We run a phone

bank as needed, with donated phone lines, crewed by volunteers.

We keep a database, on donated equipment, with public domain

software and volunteer labor. We buy our own paper by the roll

for printing literature. In the year after we got organized, the

Coalition gave out over a million pieces of literature,

equivalent to a third of the population of Colorado. Not bad --

but not enough.

	We also consistently beat legislation in the state

legislature. In two years running, anti-gun rights bills have

lost in the Senate Judiciary Committee, by five to four and then

six to three. In the following year, our opponents thought they

could get a better deal in another committee. We won there also:

six to nothing.

	Colorado is considered by some national gun rights

organizations to be the best organized state in the Union. This

is not a compliment to the Firearms Coalition of Colorado, but an

indictment of the other 49 states' organizations, or lack

thereof.



	Another place to start working is with the language. George

Orwell and Alfred Korzybski showed how language affects the

thinking process. We must regain the language. This will,

unfortunately, take a long time and a lot of effort. But it can

be done in conjunction with other efforts.



	First, gun owning must be perceived as a victimless habit.

The same arguments for smoking dope and snorting coke can be made

for owning guns. Sure, people are going to hurt themselves,

through stupidity, incompetence or ignorance. \\That is their

right!\\ The tremendous destruction caused by drug users is not

due to the drugs \\per se\\, but rather to the fact that they are

illegal. With legal drugs, or weapons, it is possible for

information about them to spread, and for people to have legal

recourse in the event they are sold bad goods. When any good or

service is illegal, the flow of information stops, and the legal

recourse no longer exists.



	In fact, not only is there no victim in owning a gun, but

they actually \\prevent\\ the owner from becoming a victim!

Because guns are used for self defense, their owners are less

likely to end up as someone else's victim.



	Gun owners should also use language slanted against the

prohibitionists, such as referring to them as prohibitionists.

This does not mean that we should be rude, or slanderous. It does

mean creative use of the language. You have probably observed the

use of the word 'prohibitionist' to refer to opponents of gun

ownership throughout this essay. This usage should spread, and so

should other words.

	Similarly, we must use language that makes us look good. We

support not guns themselves, but -- more important -- gun

\\rights\\. We are not the gun movement or the gun lobby, but the

gun \\rights\\ movement. Who dares to oppose our \\rights?\\

	No one who has studied the relationship between prohibition

and crime can deny that prohibition fails utterly to stop crime.

If it did, then New York and Washington, D.C. would be pacific

utopias. From this we must inevitably draw a moral certitude:

Every politician who votes for any law that restricts our Right

of Self Defense is an accomplice before the fact to every

mugging, every burglary, every rape, every murder, and every

other crime committed subsequently in that jurisdiction.



	Our opponents are excellent at manipulating the language to

suit their own ends. We must be better at it than they are. Two

can play at doublespeak.



	We need to bring out the fact that the prohibitionists are

liars. They said years ago, when the big thing was Saturday Night

Specials, that they only wanted to take away cheap handguns. I

don't know what you've paid for a defense rifle, but they are not

cheap. And even Pete Shields is smart enough to tell that they

aren't handguns. What else are they going to lie about? Do they

also lie when they say that all they want is our defense rifles?



	Another area where we can take the offensive is to point out

that every "nut with a gun" incident is a failure of authority --

the same authority that is supposed to a) take away our guns, and

b) protect us from wackos. The government that was supposed to

protect us failed to do so when Mr Patrick Purdy took a defense

rifle to a yard full of school children. \\We\\ need those

defense rifles so we can defend ourselves against the next wacko.

	Furthermore, the Stockton school board is \\in loco

parentis\\ of those children. They clearly failed in their duty.

Has anyone started proceedings to get them thrown out of office,

or sued them for malfeasance?



	Gun owners have for years supported those political

candidates who have been the lesser of two evils. This is wrong:

the lesser of two evils is still evil. The Republican Party has

abandoned us. We should then feel free to abandon them. Sarah

Brady is a registered Republican.

	This is not to argue that gun owners must vote Democratic.

Rather, we should engage in tactical voting. This means casting

the vote most likely to produce the outcome we want -- not the

same as voting for the best candidate.

	If you have, say, a prohibitionist Democrat opposed by a

pro-gun rights Republican, it may be tactically more advantageous

to donate funds to a loony left candidate than to the Republican.

This advantage obtains because the loony left candidate will draw

more votes, per dollar spent, than the Republican will. Here, the

concept is to draw votes away from the prohibitionist, rather

than toward the gun rights candidate. Because you gain more votes

per dollar spent, the pro-gun rights candidate wins by a larger

majority.

	If the thought of supporting the loony left makes you gag,

consider smaller parties closer to your own predilections. The

Libertarian Party has consistently supported gun owner rights,

unlike either of the two major parties. It is also the largest of

the minor parties, in terms of both membership and votes. It has

the best chance to play balance of power politics of all the

minor parties.

	Furthermore, the Libertarian Party can be used to threaten

the incumbent politicians. When you write to your incumbent

congresscritter, remind him, her or it that the Libertarian Party

exists, and state plainly that you will not vote for the

incumbent unless he \\consistently\\ supports your right to own

guns.

	The mathematics are very simple: there are some 70 million

gun owners in the US, most of whom are of voting age. If only of

a quarter of us voted for the LP's presidential candidate, those

17 million votes could throw the next election into the House of

Representatives. The House has a Democratic majority. Tell

\\that\\ to every Republican party hack you know.



	\\"Battles are won by frightening the enemy."\\

General George S. Patton, Jr.



	Gun owning is a right. It is a civil right, as surely as the

right to freedom of religion or the right to be secure in your

person and papers against unreasonable search and seizure. And it

is equally protected by the civil rights laws. Further, it is

illegal to conspire to violate anyone's civil rights. The

prohibitionists must be threatened with this!

	Further, what other civil right is so hemmed in with

restrictions and permissions? Do we have to undergo a background

check before we can open up a ministry? Must we get permission

from a police chief or sheriff before we can vote?



	To knowingly swear to a thing is perjury. Perjury is a

criminal offense, although not a felony. Given Howard

Metzenbaum's views on the rights of gun owners, his oath of

office as a United States Senator is perjury, pure and simple.

Again, the prohibitionists must be threatened with this.

	Furthermore, this and the civil rights issue are great for

media grandstanding.



	\\"The power to tax is the power to destroy."\\

Oliver Wendell Holmes



	If we have a Right to Self Defense, then we have that right

unfettered by government in any way. Further, if it is government

policy to reduce crime, then an adequately armed civilian

population is essential. Toward both of these ends, we should

call for the immediate repeal of all local, state and federal

taxes on all weapons and ammunition. Yes, folks, this includes

Pittman-Robinson.



	All regulatory obstructions to the right to own guns should

be repealed. To ask of some bureaucrat or politician "permission"

to defend yourself and your rights against that same bureaucrat

or politician is absurd -- and obscene.



	The right of a person to defend himself or herself with no

second guessing by police or judges must be supported. Make My

Day laws, such as Colorado's, should be passed in every state.



	\\"Government, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a

terrible master."\\

George Washington



	In order to keep government a servant, we the people should

be better armed than it is. We should prohibit any government

agencies the use in any jurisdiction of any weapon prohibited by

that jurisdiction to the civilians there. If we may not own

defense rifles, then neither may the police use them. If we are

prohibited so-called "cop killer" ammunition, then so also are

the police.

	If we could get such a law passed, then no police chief

would dare argue for gun prohibition again.



	We have a great many sports available to our young, in

school and out of it. Marksmanship, weapon care and gun etiquette

should be made available as well as football or baseball.

Practical shooting should be encouraged. It is the weapons

incompetents like Mr Carl Rowan, of the \\Washington Post\\, who

give gun owners a bad name. By encouraging proper weapons skills

in schools, we will head off that problem in years to come.

	If the United States ever again finds itself in a war

supported by the people, these skills will be most useful.



	Gun owners and others should push for a National Self

Defense Day, on which people would be encourage to openly wear

their weapons or the appropriate symbols. Marksmanship badges,

black belts, Mace canisters, pistols, etc. should all be worn on

this day. Given that the battle at Lexington was fought over gun

control, its anniversary is an appropriate date.



	In a particular effort to reduce rape, police ranges should

be opened to women who are new to guns. An armorer should be

available to advise on a first purchase, and an instructor to

teach. Further, this policy should be widely publicized,

especially through the women's movement. This will be far more

effective than handing out rape whistles. Further, it will pay

for itself in reduced crime and more effective use of police

officers in crime \\prevention\\ instead of writing up more

reports.



	When an armed civilian shows up at a confrontation

situation, police are often confused. Worse, they are prone to

shoot first and interrogate later. They should be trained to

accept armed civilian backup. Armed civilians are often better

armed than the police (as they should be), and usually better

shots.



	\\"You can never be too strong. Get every man and gun you

can secure, provided it does not unduly delay your attack."\\

General George S. Patton, Jr.



	Gun owners are a minority! We should forge tactical

alliances with other minorities. This will bring us a lot of new

gun owners. Also, the inherent racism of modern American

liberalism can be put to use when some members of these

minorities start to speak out against prohibition.



	The gun rights movement is missing a major bet by ignoring

women. Instead, the Self Defense Argument should be used to bring

them in. This does not mean that they should be politicized.

Rather, gun owner groups should speak to women's groups

(everything from the Junior League to the National Organization

for Women), and emphasis self defense. Show them proper weapon

handling, and encourage them to handle a gun (unloaded,

naturally). Of course, throw in a five minute lecture about

current gun legislation.





	\\"Absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty

and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not

even in the largest majority."\\

Kentucky Constitution,  2.



	Gun ownership has been seen, even by its alleged defenders,

as a right wing issue. It need not be. It cannot be. For good or

for ill, this country has become a democracy. Gun owners must be

shown to be in the majority. Further, if gun ownership is to be

secure in this country, then the prohibitionists must be shown to

be the loony left which they are. These two goals can best be

achieved by bringing in a lot more people. These people must

include minorities, but should not be limited to them.

	Everyone needs self defense -- except the dead.



	The media, especially the television media, have a kneejerk

prohibitionist bias. This can be overcome. The reason that this

bias exists is that they are essentially followers. They follow

whatever fad they think is currently "in". This is why I am

placing them last in this list of suggestions. If we lead -- as

we must -- they will follow.

	The politics of the media, if they can be said to have any

at all as a group, is: whatever will sell newspapers. It should

be obvious by now that Richard Nixon did nothing that his

predecessors had not done, yet he was hounded out of office by a

coalition of liberal media and liberal politicians. His real

error was not in bugging the Democratic headquarters or bombing

Cambodia, but in being hated by the media. Similarly, Jim Wright

did nothing unusual except to make enough enemies in the media

and in the Democratic membership of the House of Representatives.

	Casting the gun rights issue in terms of the Right to Self

Defense and in terms of poor vs. rich will reshape the way the

liberals in the media will think about gun ownership. Mr. Carl

Rowan has already proved that, in spite of their public noise,

some of the media really understand the importance of guns. Ask

them: how many camera crews go unarmed to cover riots? When we

have the media convinced that gun ownership is for poor and

underprivileged people too, then we will win in the media.

	There are some real idealists in the media. These people

believe in such utopian fantasies as honest politicians and

ethics in government. For these people, a continuous pounding of

the perjury charge against Senators Metzenbaum and Kennedy will

have a positive effect. It may take five years, it may take

twenty, but some day Senator Kennedy is going to jail for

perjury. It is the idealists in the media who will make it

happen.



	\\"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that

good men should do nothing."\\

Edmund Burke



	Most gun owners would rather hunt deer than hunt tyrants. So

long as this is true, we will continue to lose ground. Yet the

tyrants who would deprive us of our Right of Self Defense are far

more dangerous than any animal. Few gun owners would have any

hesitation about using a gun to prevent a rape or a murder. Will

they not act now, before it is too late, to prevent their own

future rape, their own future murder?

	We have had two hundred years of our rights being eroded. We

must now regain what we have lost. If we delay, our effort will

be that much greater. If we delay much longer, we will have no

rights left whatsoever. It won't be easy. But a chance at winning

is better than the certainty of losing what little we have left.





	These methods have been shown to work. The Firearms

Coalition of Colorado has been using many of these suggestions.

It has engaged the enemy five times in its year of existence. It

has won four times in statewide and local issues. The fifth, the

defense rifle ban in Denver, isn't over yet. But the real

battleground isn't in the Colorado Statehouse, or the California

Statehouse. It isn't in Washington, not even in the Congress.

	The real battle is to convince our fellow Americans that

they too have this right. And that they too should defend it. Win

that battle, and the State houses and the Congress will follow.

\\That,\\ dear reader, is why this article was written.



	\\"Americans, with arms in their hands, are fools as well as

cowards to surrender. If they fight on, they will conquer."\\

General George S. Patton, Jr.







	\\Charles Curley is a freelance philosopher and

software engineer living in Colorado. He is a recent defense

rifle refugee from California. He was a founding member of

the National Committee to Legalize Gold, which in 1974

regained for Americans the right to own gold.\\





-- 30 --





8600 words



Charles Curley

111 E. Drake #7091

Fort Collins, CO 80525



303/490-2944



------------------------------------------------

(This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the

Radio Free Michigan archives by the archive maintainer.




All files are ZIP archives for fast download.


 E-mail bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu)





