There is a grass roots movement to let the politicians know that we are mad and not going to take it any more. It is called Feed Your Gun Week. During the week of July 4th, everyone is asked to go to the store and buy at least one box of ammo. This is to send a message to Washington that we do not intend to give up our right to bear arms, or any other right. It is to send the message that the line has been drawn in the sand. Stand up and be counted, folks. It really doesn't cost you much, and you will still get the use of the ammo for whatever purpose your conscience dictates. Don't let the ball drop. We must begin to make an impression on our "representatives" now or it will be forever too late, or at least it will be much harder.

PLEASE STAND UP!!!!

-- Carmen (logcabin_now@yahoo.com), June 01, 2000

Answers

How is Washington going to know that I just bought some ammo from my local hunter's supply? Do these stores have to report ammo sales to Washington? Does Washington keep a record of ammo sales and compare them weekly to know that sales increased during the July 4th week? If I'm going to participate, I'd like to know that it did some good other than giving me another box of ammo.

-- Yesteryear Cottage (oberg@watervalley.net), June 01, 2000.

I don't think so!!!!! This voting American supports gun control. There is too much killing going on and I for one am tired of it.

-- teresa (teresam@ascent.net), June 01, 2000.

Well Teresa, you are in favor of gun control and are tired of killing. Why not check out the Nazi tactics before you decide that the government is the vehicle that should have all the control? They started with gun control and in '68 when the first gun legislation in this country was passed the author used the Nazi documents as a guide. You better stock a lot of popcorn sit back and get ready to watch a TON of killing if you think that this government values life. If you are a good little serf they might not kill you.

-- Doreen (livinginskin@yahoo.com), June 01, 2000.

Can you use ammo in a slingshot?? That (and a machete for brush) are my only available "weapons" Yeah, well, I can use a hammer, piece of broken glass, sliver of ceramic as well, but I'm talking "effective re: your point".

Sign me: Against indiscriminate gun ownership (and registration) and all for old fashioned knife and other "weapons"

Kick ass using your ass.

-- A (Razerfish@aol.com), June 01, 2000.

At least when they take my guns--I won't be alive to see it. Let the message go forth to every government agency--I intend to keep my guns or die in the attempt thereof ! For those of you with the false notion of guns being the problem---please remember--when my freedom dies, your freedom goes with it. I'll buy a box for the cause and add it to the 11,000 rounds of ammunition I presently have on hand.

-- Joel Rosen (Joel681@webtv.net), June 02, 2000.

OK, sounds like one box of ammo for me, one for my wife and what the heck, I'll get a brick of .22's for my daughter but it'll be five or six years before she's big enough to shoot.

While y'all are at it, I hope you'll drop a line or send an e-mail to your federal house reps and senators about why you're buying that ammo!

...........Alan.

The Prudent Food Storage FAQ, v3.5

http://www.ProvidenceCo-op.com

-- A.T. Hagan (athagan@netscape.net), June 02, 2000.

Lets remember guns don't kill anyone the people behind them do . I am for certain gun control , trigger locks on all new guns [ for the idiots who need them ] I don't even mind back ground checks .As long as the rules are truley set forth for good .I have 4 children and they know how to shoot. All they have to do is ask , and we will go out back .They would not even think of doing this alone , but just in case we take precautions .Put us in for a couple of boxes!

-- Patty Gamble (fodfarms@slic.com), June 02, 2000.

Quite an issue here -- being in Canada, we have a little different view on the situation. We're currently going through a bit of a crisis where people who own guns are required to register them -- even the 200 year old musket that dear old great-grandpa left -- regardless of whether it works or not, has to be registered or handed over -- it's a gun.

I was born and raised in a rural area. Guns were used for hunting, slaughtering (pigs, mostly) and occasionally, for protection (more by "show" than actual fact). I grew up around them, and by the age of twelve, could load and shoot as well as my brothers. Dad made sure we all knew how to use one, and use it responsibly. Before we could talk we knew you NEVER pointed a gun unless you were prepared to use it. Guns have their place.

The other side of the coin -- my husband is from England, where even the police don't carry guns. He feels that it would be a better world if guns had never been invented. Needless to say, there are some interesting discussions around our house.

The fact of the matter is, as others have said here, guns don't kill people, people kill people. The problem is not gun ownership, but the lack of respect for life that seems to be a sign of our times.

The notion of personal need, want, and satisfaction being more important than the common good has fostered the current problems we are experiencing. Most parents of the current generation of gun- toting bullies were (and are) far more involved with their careers than their children. Children without guidance grow up self-centred and uncaring. Is it any wonder that we have the problems we do now?

That, along with "capitalism" (which IMHO is just another word for "gimme -- screw you") has fostered a society -- an entire generation -- with no compassion or real feeling for their fellow human beings.

My father was never without his gun. He never had any intention of using it against another human being, unless one of us kids or my mother were in danger -- but it was there. The difference between then and now? It was, then, considered a tool. Nowadays, toting a gun around seems to be considered a sign of power. Pretty heady stuff for a generation who feels powerless.

Sorry for the rant, but this is a subject near and dear to me. Many up here have bumper stickers -- you probably see them stateside, too. They say -- "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". While I don't think just ANYONE should have access to a gun (i.e., a convicted murdered, for instance), I'm not so naive as to believe that the gun that is used in a murder is going to be a legally registered weapon, and the guy (or girl) pulling the trigger is going to be the registered owner. Most of these weapons are stolen.

How do we make these tools "tools" again? Start with the problem, not the symptom. Nurture our children and the underlying problem will take care of the violence we are now dealing with.

-- Tracy (trimmer@westzone.com), June 02, 2000.

The biggest problem with the gun control issue, not one that I think homesteaders have in general, is a lack of intelligence and/or responsibility. Just about every weapon is a tool of some type (I take exception at some domestically oriented, easy to modify [full auto] semi-automatics like the TEC-9) and needs to be treated properly. If people went running around the streets with sharpened weed whips and ended up cutting themselves and others we wouldn't blame the weed whips.......... I firmly believe that the goverment has the right to do something about guns to protect its citizens, but parents should be doing something too. You'd be amazed at how many folks quickly lock up their chemicals and pointed instuments for the sake of their children but never bother to teach them about guns. I say that if parents, in general as a whole, can't teach their kids about this important topic, that the schools do. The gun control issue should be about using both hands and only pointing (much less firing) at something you intend to kill. Knowledge won't stop the nut jobs, but it will the most senseless and preventable of gun related incidents.

-- Chris Stogdill (cstogdill@rmci.net), June 02, 2000.

Despite all the hooplah, Yesteryear has a point.

Who's going to tell the "gummint" that you purchased the ammo? Seems like a great time to buy stock in firearm manufacturers. Not only are they scrambling to make safer products (read NEW products), they stand to make a bundle in ammo sales. Sounds like a WIN / WIN situation to me.

(:raig

-- Craig Miller (CMiller@ssd.com), June 02, 2000.

Well said, Tracy! Sounds like some of the conversations we have around our house, too. I agree, SOMETHING needs to be done, but so far, the proposals for gun "control" aren't going to control anything. My husband's family were all taught how to handle guns from the time they were very young, and he keeps his locked up. (not that anywone with something to break glass with, couldn't get to them.)My father, on the other hand, kept his in his closet, never taught us how to use them, just forbid us to ever touch them. Of course, we did, whenever he wasn't around. Dumb. I don't want anyone telling me that I cannot have a gun, if I choose, but I think if you are going to have guns, you MUST BE RESPONSIBLE, and that starts with teaching your children responsiblity in all aspects of thier lives. Caring for others, valuing life and respecting others and their property and rights. How can we turn back the clock to re-teach all this generation that has grown up without those values?

-- Jan B (Janice12@aol.com), June 02, 2000.

One of the reasons we fought the Revolutionary War was so that we would have not only freedoms, but the RIGHT to the tools to preserve those freedoms. I've taught in the inner city schools. Criminals, and students so inclined, do no use legally registered guns. That is the problem. They also have no idea of what the guns are capable of or the damage they can inflict nor even how to care for the gun. They just point and shoot. I own guns. I am teaching my sons how to respect and care for the guns as dangerous weapons that have a place. Interestingly enough, I have taught them the same concepts with regard to motor vehicles. I've buried enough students over the years who did not respect the damage a car can inflict. As I prepare to teach American History to my sons, we are learning even more about our Constitional Rights and the responsibilites that exist with those rights. Gun ownership is a choice. I know of parents who do not teach their children to respect any weapon. They also do not teach their children to drive carefully. What I percieve gun control advocates to be saying is that we need responsible parenting and teaching. Do not kid yourself that it could be taught in the schools either. They already have more than they can handle with the time and recources available. We need to speak out and help teach this important concept of responsible use of guns. We can not ban every thing that is capable of causing harm.

-- Cheryl Cox (bramblecottage@hotmail.com), June 02, 2000.

Bravo People ! I stand in awe of your comments. I am speechless(and that is hard to do). You understand so well. Carry on !

-- Joel Rosen (Joel681@webtv.net), June 02, 2000.

Police are here to protect the public! OK, but just who is gonna protect us from the police? Some of the new ones are more viscious than the predators roaming the streets. Personally, I'll keep my firearms, keep my mouth shut, buy ammo as I can afford it and wait for the day that Jesus Christ comes for His own at the rapture. Until He returns, or I die, my guns will be handy----AND LOADED!!!! Politicians, most cops and snakes make a good threesome. I can live without all of'm. Matt. 24:44

-- hoot gibson (hoot@otbnet.com), June 02, 2000.

Hoot raises an interesting point with his comment that the police are supposed to protect us. Actually -- and this is a point misunderstood by most people -- the role of police in the United States does NOT include protection. The US Supreme Court has held repeatedly that law enforcement agencies are not responsible for the protection of individual citizens. They're strictly after-the-fact agencies -- someone needs to break the law before they get involved. Think about it: if protection were a police function, we'd need a cop on every block and the courts would be full of lawsuits againt police forces by people who were crime victims. The courts have held that self-protection is an individual responsibility -- and then of course the politicians take away our ability to protect ourselves. That slogan on the sides of police cruisers everywhere -- To Protect and Serve -- is at least half a lie.

-- Cash (cash@andcarry.com), June 03, 2000.

In response to an earlier question, yes the government does keep statistics of both gun and ammo sales for specific time periods. The purpose of choosing a specific week to buy ammo is that people will be more likely to buy if they have a time period in mind than if it is just a "buy some ammo sometime" deal. "Sometime" will continue to be slid off to another date that may never come.

As for vehicles, many more people are killed by vehicles than by guns, and there are many more irresponsible vehicle drivers than gun owners.

The government may be about to start doing something about the vehicles too. Remember, they are talking constantly that SUV's are killer vehicles, and how no one really needs one anyway. Maybe all those city folk don't need them, but folks like us do. If cars were built more solidily, there wouldn't be so many people killed in them anyway.

I am glad to see so many of you feel the same way that I do about the gun issue. I really do feel that if we do not start to show our resistance to gun control now, things will really get out of hand.

-- Carmen (logcabin_now@yahoo.com), June 03, 2000.

Put me down for some ammo for my daughter and I. And by the way - does anyone have the address for the NRA's answer to the Million Mom's march? Where the NRA is asking Moms to send a buck to show their support for less restrictions - they are hoping to get a million bucks to use for education purposes. They can have my dollar, and maybe several more to go with it. Some of you all may call their education propaganda, I call it propaganda with a purpose and will willingly support it.

Yesteryear, the media is obviously aware of the "Feed your Gun" thing and will report the numbers, though whether I would trust then is highly debatable.

A @ Razorfish, We all ought to be trained in some form of self defense so we could "kick ass", but it won't do too much good if the person attacking you is also trained. I had a patient a foot taller than me, weighing 3X what I did, and the MD couldn't understand why I couldn't "make" him wear his oxygen. I can educate him, I can cajole, plead and order him - I sure as heck can't MAKE him do it. (Idiot.)

I had a Chicago homicide detective once say to me "Smith and Wesson make us all equal". I would rather my pretty little blond daughter have a nine millimeter in her car when she is on the road at night than all the martial arts training in the world. Both would be better. I refer readers to Massad Ayoob's recent column in Backwoods Home magazine - "Armed and Female" for more information.

-- Polly (tigger@moultrie.com), June 03, 2000.

I too am tired of the rampid use of guns to commit murders. I would sleep much better if I thought that if any murder was commited, it was done with only a baseball bat.

-- Ed Holt (goat@sssnet.com), June 03, 2000.

Now, Ed went and did it--I knew it would happen and now we have to ban baseball. No atheletic source for our children during the summer and no great american pastime. What's next Ed ? Apple Pie ? Seriously, look at what you wrote, People kill, not items. God didn't ban trees when Able killed Cain with a stick. They aren't banning guns, they are banning your gun and they are keeping theirs'. Wake up, smell the gunpowder !

-- Joel Rosen (Joel681@webtv.net), June 03, 2000.

WHOOOOPS--no I'm not re-writing the Bible--make that Cain killing Able. Too many hours on a haybaler,sorry.

-- Joel Rosen (Joel681@webtv.net), June 03, 2000.

Uncle Sam is going to do whatever he wants or feels will get him reelected. As to those who don't want firearms feel free to turn them in. They will even make you out as a hero, it is your business. I intend to keep mine. I have broken no law with mine, don't make me a criminal. All of the lying and stupidity just simply makes me sick.

-- Tom Calloway (Calfarm@msn.com), June 03, 2000.

This subject probably doesn't concern me because I have only a dozen or so guns in my house I don't know what good it'll do because, "who will know?" but, what the heck, I'll go buy another box of .22 shells just because I like to be a part of stuff like this. I recently shot a possom and a snake with my .410. Maybe I'll get another box of .410 ammo too. Hang tough!! Eagle

-- eagle (eagle@alpha1.net), June 04, 2000.

I'm going through menopause & I have a hand gun--ANY QUESTIONS??????? Please, write me down for at lease two boxes of ammo! Thank you! Sonda in Ks.

-- Sonda (sgbruce@birch.net), June 04, 2000.

To those of you who would rather have murders committed with a baseball bat or use a hammer for self defense--have you ever SEEN anyone beat anything to death. I have. I'll take the bullet anyday.

-- Carmen (logcabin_now@yahoo.com), June 04, 2000.

To the folks who would rather see guns banned...Rosie O'Donnell just applied for a concealed carry permit for her bodyguard, and you can't have one. President Clinton has access to the world's largest arsenal seemingly at his own disposal without any need to declare war anymore, and YOU can't have one. These people's lives are obviously much more important than yours or mine.

Any government that doesn't trust it's citizenry with their own right to protect themselves is definitely up to no good. The historical differentiation between a citizen and a slave hasalways been the right to carry a weapon and the right to travel. Both of these rughts are being seriously curtailed in this country.

If all of the materials and knowledge of how to make and use firearms were completley eradicated from ALL of humanity at one glorious instant I would be happy to use my rifles for croquet. Until that time, which I believe is the establishment of the millenial Kingdom of God, I intend to keep and use my weapons AS I SEE FIT! It is my God given right.

Check history again, there was a great big fight over the Bill of Rights for this very reason. Those against the Bill of Rights were worried that it would be construed by ignoramuses that those were the only rights people had and the Government GAVE them to the people. Not the case!

If it makes you nervous that I have an undisclosed amount of weaponry I am happy for that. Look at it as a Cold War form of detente. The only time I would use a weapon on a person would be in an act of self- preservation. Unfortunately, with all of these unconstitutional laws being passed we are closing in on that point.

-- Doreen Davenport (livinginskin@yahoo.com), June 04, 2000.

I've been working on this locally all day. How will they know ? At 6 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, I myself will fire a 30 round burst from a full auto AK-47, I will joined by at least 30 farms in Craig County, Virginia and any other citizens that receive the word. I also suggest it to any family that wishes to participate. My 7 year old will follow me with his Crossman bb gun. My wife with her Hawkin. Let the sound of Freedom echo down the I-81 corridor all the way to ears of the Whore of Babylon. Join us?

-- Joel Rosen (Joel681@webtv.net), June 04, 2000.

I've been working on this locally all day. How will they know ? At 6 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, I myself will fire a 30 round burst from a full auto AK-47, I will joined by at least 30 farms in Craig County, Virginia and any other citizens that receive the word. I also suggest it to any family that wishes to participate. My 7 year old will follow me with his Crossman bb gun. My wife with her Hawkin. Let the sound of Freedom echo down the I-81 corridor all the way to ears of the Whore of Babylon. Join us?

-- Joel Rosen (Joel681@webtv.net), June 04, 2000.

On July 4th--I meant July 4th

-- Joel Rosen (Joel681@webtv.net), June 04, 2000.

OK. I'm down for a box and spreading the word. I assume we need to do this during the business days of July 3-7th? As for a 6 pm shoot-off, well I live in a densely populated hell-hole, so that's probably not a good idea! Wish I could participate! Perhaps my local gun club would like to make an event of it. Sue

-- Sue (sulandherb@aol.com), June 05, 2000.

Count me and hubby in for a couple boxes and we shoot black powder every July 4th any way. Real loud too!!!

-- Kathy (jubilant@ncweb.com), June 07, 2000.

I wanted to add this story to this thread. There are strong reasons the framers of the Constitution include a right to keep and bear arms. It is so tempting to believe that they did it to supply a state army. The truth is however, that the framers believed in a government controlled by the people. In order to control the power hungry the knew that individual citizens must be able to restore constitutional government should the checks and balances they put in place fail. The Declaration of Independence said that citizen must have that right, and that it was not given to them by man, but by God. I am submitting the following articles to give all of you some things to think about.

Little Bit Farm From: Gene Trosper (by way of Bob Baird ) To: freedom-loversinternational@egroups.com Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 3:13 PM Subject: [FLI] Very sad (about guns and children).

All - Please note: Gene Trosper is Riverside, CA Liberterian Party Chairman. I deleted most of the Cc list for privacy considerations...... the information contained herein may be slightly out of context for this forum, however it does show the problems that a fascist government thrusts upon us by removing our personal freedoms and liberties.

- Bob Baird ============================= Cc: Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 3:33 PM Subject: Very sad (about guns and children).

> This is a copy of a snail mail I received today: > > When we left for an evening out, my wife and I told > our son, Kevin (age 12) when we would return and > reminded him of our rules for staying home alone. He > was anxious to prove that he could be trusted to stay > home alone. We live in a very safe neighborhood. We > felt confident there would be no reason we shouldn't > leave him alone that night. > > Kevin is a very responsible boy. We raised him well. > We taught him to respect the life and property of > others. We taught him that my guns were not toys. > Kevin understood that they were only to be used under > my supervision. He was an excellent shot. Because of > Kevin's excellent eye sight, he could beat my score > every time. > > Shortly after we left, Kevin logged on to the > Internet. He began surfing the web. He was on for > about an hour when he lost his connection. He tried > to reconnect, but the phone was dead. He thought he > heard a storm starting to blow outside and thought the > wind had damaged the phone lines. > > A little scared, Kevin went downstairs to go next door > to ask the neighbors if he could stay with them. Just > then he heard someone in the house. The policeman > said the man had probably cut the phone line because he > saw the alarm sticker. > > Kevin went very quietly up to my bedroom and opened my > drawer where I keep my pistol. He said he thought he > would hide in the closet with the gun and hope they > wouldn't find him. He said he would have shot them if > necessary. > > When Kevin found my gun, it was useless to him. I was > such a responsible parent that I put a trigger lock on > it. Kevin was not able to get the lock off the gun. > Terrified, he opened the closet where I keep my > shotgun. That too had a trigger lock on it. > > Kevin hid in the closet anyway. The man found him. > He raped and beat Kevin. He left Kevin tied to the > bed bleeding from his rectum and with other evidence > of abuse too disgusting to describe here. > > Our son lays in a hospital now. It is too early to > rule out the possibility that they might have also > given him AIDS. He has permanent > psychological injuries in addition to the cramps and > other pain from his ruptured colon. He would have > been better off dead than to have endured that. > > If only I had not put those locks on my guns, the molester > would be dead and our Kevin would be safe. Please > send this to everyone you know so maybe other children > will not have to experience what happened to Kevin. >

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), June 17, 2000.

Here is the second article. I know the first was incredibly sad. This one is better. Little Bit farm To view the entire article, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_dougherty/20000616_xnjdo_2nd_amen dm.shtml

Friday, June 16, 2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 2nd Amendment defended by judges Gun-toting jurists uphold individuals' right to bear arms by Jon E. Dougherty ------------------------------------------------------------------

Gun-rights activists from across the country are giddy after word spread that the Second Amendment's right to "keep and bear arms" received what court observers said was a fair and equitable hearing in the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

During a presentation of the case to a three-judge panel on Tuesday, gun-rights activists who observed the proceedings reported that "the court really beat up on ... government" lawyers who were arguing that the Second Amendment is a right only granted to states, not individuals.

Also, a report summarizing the hearing suggested Wednesday that gun-rights activists may be able to count on more constitutional support for an individual's right to bear arms from the courts in the future.

The appeals case stems from an earlier U.S. district court judge's ruling in Texas on March 30, 1999. U.S. District Judge Sam R. Cummings in Lubbock ruled in favor of Dr. Timothy Joe Emerson's claims that his arrest was unconstitutional. Emerson was arrested while under a restraining order from his estranged wife for violation of a federal statute prohibiting a person under such an order from possessing a firearm.

According to pro-gun author Neal Knox, Judge Harold R. DeMoss, Jr., a George Bush appointee, told government lawyers they were misreading a prior Supreme Court ruling from 1939 on which they were basing their argument.

That case, Miller vs. United States, found that because a sawed-off shotgun was of "no military value," citizens were forbidden to have them. However, DeMoss reportedly chided government lawyers because the 1939 case did nothing to establish an individual's right or a state's right in the Second Amendment.

Also, the court noted, in the Miller case, sawed-off shotguns were found to have "no military value," but other weapons -- such as so-called "assault rifles" -- have been banned in the U.S., even though they do have immense military value.

Cummings made similar observations in his earlier ruling.

Court observers said DeMoss asked federal prosecutors if Emerson's Beretta Model 92 9mm pistol isn't the type used by armies. Of course it is, noted Knox, "it is the standard U.S. sidearm."

DeMoss also raised a "critical" 10th Amendment issue, the report said.

"I have a 12 gauge and 16 gauge shotgun and a .30 caliber deer rifle in my closet at home. Can you tell me how those affect interstate commerce?" the judge asked prosecutors.

According to the report, Judge Robert M. Parker, a Carter appointee who was moved to the appellate court by President Clinton, told the government, "I don't want you to lose any sleep over this, but Judge Will Garwood (the senior judge) and I between us have enough guns to start a revolution in most South American countries."

Court observers told the Knox Report that there "was no reluctance" to discuss Second Amendment issues, unlike in "most firearms-related court cases." One observer, Linda Thomas of Houston, told Knox that the judges had done their homework.

"It was like sitting in on a Gun Rights Policy Conference legal seminar," she said.

"If the Fifth Circuit concurs with the trial judge that the Second Amendment protects gun ownership as an individual right -- which now seems quite possible -- there would be a conflict between the circuit courts, almost guaranteeing a Supreme Court hearing after the next election," Knox said on Wednesday.

In his initial trial held in Cummings' court, Emerson claimed the federal statute he was charged under violated his Second and Fifth Amendment rights, as well as the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

While the court upheld the statute under the 10th Amendment, it ruled that the law in question, 18 USC, §922 (g)(8), was indeed a violation of Emerson's Second and Fifth Amendment rights.

"[The statute] is unconstitutional," Cummings wrote in regards to the Second Amendment, "because it allows a state court divorce proceeding, without particularized findings of the threat of future violence, to automatically deprive a citizen of his Second Amendment rights."

Regarding the Fifth Amendment, Cummings said because the statute "is an obscure, highly technical statute with no [prior notice] requirement, it violates Emerson's Fifth Amendment due process rights to be subject to prosecution without proof of knowledge that he was violating the statute."

Court officials told WorldNetDaily that the justices were under no time limit to issue a ruling, and they had no indication yesterday when that ruling could come.

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), June 17, 2000.