Big Head Press

L. Neil Smith's
Number 525, June 28, 2009

Remember, when seconds count,
the police are only minutes away.

  Table of Contents Contents Next Next

Letters to the Editor

Send Letters to
Note: All letters to this address will be considered for
publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication

The Right to Talk About Guns

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

Hello, there!

I've been reading lately—most recently in a column by Vin Suprynowicz of the Las Vegas Review Journal—about your group's involvement with students across the country whose First Amendment rights are being violated by college and university administrations bent on suppressing talk about the individual right to own and carry weapons.

Vin's column.

As a writer myself, I'm disturbed by anything that threatens the Bill of Rights, especially the First Amendment. And as the author of 28 books, each of which advocates, to one degree or another, an armed populace, I'm especially concerned when the suppressed topic is armed self-defense.

Naturally, I'd like to call your attention to my works. But even more, in this case, I'd like to propose a little experiment that will publicly expose those guilty of this suppression for what they truly are.

I suggest that one or more of my books be made the subject of campus discussions about individual rights. All but one are fiction, which, I assume, makes them literature, undeniably protected by the First Amendment. Some center almost exclusively and pivot on the unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right of every man, woman, and responsible child to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon—rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything—any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

Several of my books have highly distinctive covers, so that—in a sort of humorous reverse twist of the 1960s, when campus socialists wanted to be noticed with Chairman Mao Tse Tung's "little red book"—a person can be seen carrying them, reading them, or holding them in a classroom.

What happens when a teacher bans my books from the classroom? What happens when an administration bans them from the campus—or orders Campus Security to confiscate them and escort their owners off the premises? What happens when they're caught—on camera—destroying them?

And even better, what happens when none of that transpires because the faculty and administration know too well what they're in for if it does?

Allow me to recommend The Probability Broach, which contains many fine arguments for personal weapons. It's been in print 30 years, and is available in text form, or as a 185-page full color graphic novel.

Text version

Graphic version

There's also my graphic novel Roswell, Texas, which is about the Texas we all wish it was, rather than the Texas we're currently stuck with.

Roswell, Texas

Thanks for everything you do. Be sure to contact me at this e-dress if you have any questions. I can also be reached on my blog at:

And remember: those who would outlaw weapons must first outlaw knowledge of weapons; those who would outlaw knowledge of weapons must eventually outlaw knowledge itself.


L. Neil Smith

Waiting For You Now At

"The Future: Canceled for Lack of Interest" On my blog L. Neil Smith at Random

And come see what you're missing! Timepeeper a unique adventure in time By L. Neil Smith and Sherard Jackson


L. Neil Smith


Re: "Toward a Police Reform Movement" by L. Neil Smith

I stand with the patriots at Concorde Bridge and Lexington Green. I am just worried that it'll happen right here in Aurora soon. The police have consistently petitioned for the ability to enter a "suspect's" home at any reason—to inspect the premises and remove any weapons the "suspect" may have.

I think perhaps you could have a commentary regarding the treatment of individuals who have been foolish enough to sign up for the Gestapo, that they haven't actually committed the acts mentioned, that your local cop is still your local cop especially if he hasn't tried to seize your rights today. That we have a responsibility to respect the rights of the individual, including the individual cop, even to protecting them, sheltering them and feeding them. We allowed them to become deadbeats, its becomes our responsibility to teach them that its not profitable to be a cop anymore, but an actual Bill of Rights Marshall (I don't think US needs Marshalls) we will support in every way we can. We will retain his services through collective bargaining or on a case-by-case basis as he sees fit. We will allow him trusted access into our privacy, an access that must not be taken lightly. And he can become a real security officer with his own contracts and responsibilities to those.

Answerable to his contract holders, himself and no one else. The problem is that many of these men do not know how to act well autonomously... what do we do? Some refuse to be educated, want somebody else to be responsible... etc.

How do we teach the muscle heads?

Andrew G Eggleston Sr.

Re: "Pep Rallies and Public Schools: How the State Programs Us for War" by J. L. Bryan

Well, J.L., here it is, another of those boring positive responses you complained about on your website. Sorry this couldn't have been hate mail (I cherish a good death threat myself, from time to time) but your essay popped me right back into dear old Choctawhatchee High School, that shining jewel of edumacation in Okaloosa County, Florida, where I matriculated (in front of everyone!) in 1964.

Memories may fade, but the scars, they last forever.

For a long time, I've wanted to start a youth branch of the libertarian movement, something school administrators could howl about and try to ban, which, of course, would attract exactly the right kind of kids. Your essay could be the cornerstone of an effort like that. I am sick unto death of being more radical than most of the younger people I know, and it's time something was done about it!

I'd like to start by rerunning this piece of yours in The Libertarian Enterprise. Would that be okay? We'll see if it gets any response and move on from there.

I will read your novels as soon as I can. Meanwhile, you might take a look at Ceres which you'll find being serialized at

Take care,

L. Neil Smith

[Since I didn't get a note saying we could run the article, here's the next-best-thing, a link to it—Editor]

Good Government Jobs

Yeah, right.

Just an FYI, I've just read the book Skinny Bastard for some pointers, not realizing it was a Vegan cheerleading supremacist's book. At least a couple of chapters delves into the slaughterhouse industries. If this is true, and I have no reasons not to believe, then it's information that government inspectors are not doing whatever it is they are supposed to be doing.

Don't get me wrong, a business can do whatever they see fit. But I just don't like the fact that my food suffered to get to my plate. This is an industry that can attract sadists. Why do I say that?

Try reading the book. I do recommend getting the cheapest used copy.

I do believe that the government is complicit with the industries and are helping "control" the media, although I think they don't really need to control them all that much in this case.

I do believe that if the industries weren't "sponsored" by the government that there would be more outrages about this, that would actually do something about this. Like in 1906, there were an uproar over the Slaughterhouses' practices, that meat prices actually dropped. Due to Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. Of course, this led Roosevelt (the first one) to actually "crusade" for the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906.

You can find these details here.

Check the "Look Inside" of the book.

I do believe that you would not advocate the meat industries doing things this way. Because I believe that the industries are violating the ZAP. By not putting the livestock out of their misery, they are making aggressions on these animals by letting them suffer. It's one thing to use these animals for what they can give us, but it's another thing entirely to let any animal suffer the pains of being butchered alive.

I have not yet read the Slaughterhouse book, but I am considering reading it as soon as my reading queue clears up some.

If I do read it, I think that I'll probably will be encouraged to take up hunting. This way, any animal would have a chance to actually live and even enjoy life as an animal. And I can do my best to minimize the animal's suffering.

Now, where is that Frontsight web-site?

Jim B.

"...police officers must be limited to the traditionall six-shot revolver and four-shot pump shotgun...."
"Toward a Police Reform Movement" by L. Neil Smith

Normally I agree with L. Neil Smith's ideas for limiting for limiting the powers governments of all levels claim over the American people. However in this case, I must disagree with Mr. Smith. Government police, as opposed to private security, should be disarmed completely.

If they desire or need access to weapons, either lethal or not, let them call upon the public. This worked reasonably well in 19th century Briton and I hear it still works well in some of the tribal land in Alaska. I hope Mr. Smith will accept this friendly correction.

Clinton Cathey

Dear Editor:

Re: "Letter from Ann Morgan"

Ann Morgan asks a question which I would like to answer.

"I am not certain which government officials Davidson believes should be put to death, or precisely what it is these officials have done. Without this information, I can't say whether or not they deserve the death penalty."

In my essay, "Rise" which started this whole discussion, I mentioned a number of crimes against humanity and showed how they were severally acts of treason.

The people who seek to uphold the constitution for these united States of America frequently talk about the importance of its many limits on government power. One of those is the punishment for treason, which means making war on the United States, which I believe includes making war on the American people.

So, I believe that constitutionalists are required to believe that officials of the government who commit acts of treason, who are indicted, tried, and convicted, ought to be put to death. It says so in their constitution.


Jim Davidson

Government and inexpensive health care is an oxymoron. I will wager with anyone that if the new health care reform is passed the following will happen.

1) The cost will increase dramatically as it did after Medicare.

2) In order to keep the cost down the service will be rationed.

3) Doctor fees will be controlled or doctors will be forced to work for the government. (Bye Bye 13th amendment.)

In the market place products are rationed by price the lower the price the higher the demand. Government cannot change reality.

Because of the increased demand the services will be rationed.

Only freedom can keep prices down, because freedom leads to competition, competition pushes prices down. Today government limits competition which is why prices are being pushed up.

Demand that those advocating anything but a free market in health care put their money where their is. If they won't do this they are liars.

No government has ever provided inexpensive health care. (Not providing a service does not make health care inexpensive.) Instead of comparing the US to socialist health care it's time to point out what is creating our problem. Regulation destroys competition if you don't believe me let's bet on it.

Now let's start a new ponzi scheme: investors agree to fund wagers with idiots who think that governments can defy the laws of economics. Profits will be divided between the investors less my modest 5% commission. If we can't beat them let's at least have the cash to start our own private health care system before the government prohibits it like the do in Canada.

Liberty now and forever,
Bill Koehler

Dear Editor, Re: "How to Deal With Provocateurs" by Paul Bonneau

I was amused and at the same time appalled by Paul Bonneau's description of the Free State Wyoming forum.

Having several years experience with that forum, I have the following thoughts to mention. First, I paid $25 for membership in FSW. When my concerns about the management of an event I agreed to host at the request of the forum's owner (Ken Royce), especially about our use of three letters in the alphabet and three colors in the spectrum, I was "given the boot."

I mention the payment because I've repeatedly asked to have my money back. Since my membership privileges have been revoked, it seems clear that Royce has decided to steal my money rather than return it. I did provide him, at his request, with an address in Panama where he could send the money, but nothing ever showed up.

It seems to me that a far better approach is free expression. The problem with censorship and removing members for no reason, and without proof, is that it limits the discussion, prevents ideas from being brought out, eliminates criticism (clearly the intention where a control freak like Royce is involved), and promotes group think. Among the other events in our history where group think has been identified as a major problem, the Cuban Missile Crisis very nearly ended with a global thermonuclear war.

But, hey, acting in an arbitrary and authoritarian fashion is part of the fun of owning a forum. Or, it must be, given the very large amount of it seen in the wild.

A better way forward is not to moderate. Let people say what they please. Don't take on the responsibility of moderating what they are and are not allowed to say.

The concept of freedom of expression is scarce amongst the statists promoting the free state Wyoming project. It is much more about "state" than about "free."

Not to mention the overt racism that is encouraged there. Or is it only xenophobia?


Jim Davidson

There is good reason to believe that it is pointless to write one's Congressman or Senator, the President, the heads of various agencies and other government officials.

There is only one good reason to write these bums, it's your right. If those of us so inclined don't write these jokers now and then this right will atrophy out of existence. Why give up a right, no matter how symbolic, for free?

Besides taking the time to bundle your letters up for landfill and to investigate whether a hostile letter is an honest grievance, the scribblings of a harmless nut, or the rare criminal threat will cut into the time the bums have to interfere with our other rights.

A.X. Perez

Re: "Expatriation Thoughts: Should I Stay Or Should I Go?" by Russell D. Longcore

Mr. Longcore,

Your decision matrix neglects the singular most important "checkbox" of all... RKBA, i.e. the Right to Self Defense ... the Right to Life itself.

As bad as they are, no other country has "Better" gun laws than the US... for now anyway... unless you are willing to live as a target in an anarchic African Combat Zone.

Which means, if you really believe in Human Rights, then the only alternative (until we can Escape from Terra), is working with the State Secession movement(s), the NRCCs and prepare to defend your life...

Until somebody can get us off this rock...

Bryan Potratz

A friend emailed this link to me and it does bare a viewing or two to face our troubled future:

Don Wilson

To Which L. Neil Smith replied:

Hey, Don—

It's clearer and clearer every day that this debt, which was accrued by idiots for the sake of thieves, must be repudiated and the dollar abandoned. No one should regret it; it's like casting our chains off.

No, it is casting our chains off.

L. Neil Smith


The problem with being noble is that sometimes you have to live up to it.
—Paraphrasing the character Crassus in Spartacus

A lovely pretext.
—Tyr Anasazi, Andromeda

Shortly after the War of the Secession the Yankee Radical Republicans forced southern states to ratify the 14th Amendment as a condition of re-admission into the Union and the end of military occupation. One of the pretexts for arrogating the power to define citizenship and civil rights from the states to the federal government was the denial of the right to own guns to Black people by the southern states.

This was taught in Texas eighth and ninth grade classrooms as late as 1993. It was in the text books in the discussion of Reconstruction. Don't know what was taught in other states.

One of the pretexts for passing the Fourteenth amendment and forcing southern states to ratify it was to guarantee that states could not ban ownership of guns.

Guaranteeing gun ownership was a lovely pretext for passing the Fourteenth Amendment. The problem with pretexts, like nobility, is that sometimes you have to deliver on them. therefor it is fair to insist that the Fourteenth Amendment be interpreted to extend the Second Amendment to the several states and local municipalities.

I so love seeing tyrants hoisted by their own petards.

A.X. Perez

To the Editor:

Another nutcase has flipped out and killed someone—a football coach in Iowa, this time. Shortly after a State Department official expressed a desire for "global gun control", i.e. disarming EVERYONE world-wide, not just in the good old USA. (Check out the online publication "The Daily Bell" article '"Guns kill civil society," says State Department nominee'.)

As I said in an earlier letter, is it possible that some shadowy group, organization, or global elitists may actually instigate these acts of apparently random violence? The book The 5th Estate by Robin Moore, although fiction, surely advanced a plausible scenario of a warped psychologist finding unstable people and subtly influencing or outright programming them to kill someone the evil supergenius masterminding the 5th Estate wanted dead.

As I said before, is it possible that these warnings by such people as Frau Reichsführer Napolitano are actually self-fulfilling prophecies?

Could be!

Marc V. Ridenour

The Pasdaran has become the new Savak. the guardians of Iran's Islamic Revolution have become a force of repression for that nation's rulers just as the Shah's secret police repressed his enemies. Only now Iran's rulers are called Ayatollahs.

Interestingly, Iran means the Land of the Aryans. There was another nation that saw itself as the Land of the Aryans last century. The activities of the Revolutionary Guards are instructive in understanding where the SS would have gone if the Nazis had won.

Shortly after the 2008 election President elect Obama was accused of trying to subvert community serviced into raising an army of political goons paid for by the state. Seeing how the Pasdaran and the Basij have turned out should serve as a warning to America not to go down that path, either under liberal or conservative leadership.

Not denying that there is already repression in America I have to admit I feel less repressed than most of the world, and I live within sight of the Third World. That said, our (mis)leaders don't deserve or get a pass on their failures to respect freedom. Give them the excuse that Tehran or Juarez are worse instead of getting after them to respect freedom and the streets of El Paso and Fort Collins will start to look more and more like those cities' streets.

So look to Tehran and Juarez, and see where surrendering control of your cities and nation to political thugs, venal political crooks, and politicians private armies gets you. Then do what you must to keep that from happening here and to reverse the steps we've taken down that path.

Before troops come out and tell you that the supreme leader. who would never lie, says you voted for the guy you voted against and don't argue about it because he'd never lie and we'll shoot you dead if you do.

A.X. Perez


Rational Review
Rational Review

Rational Review News Digest
Rational Review News Digest

Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates.
We cheerfully accept donations!

to advance to the next article
  Table of Contents
to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 525, June 28, 2009

Big Head Press