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)