Big Head Press

L. Neil Smith's
Number 704, January 6, 2013

"It is perhaps a bit late, but individuals
who value civilization are beginning to act."

Previous Previous Table of Contents Contents Next Next

Letters to the Editor

Bookmark and Share

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publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication

[Letters to the editor are welcome on any and all subjects. Sign your letter in the text body with your name and e-mail address as you wish them to appear, otherwise we will use the information in the "From:" header!]


I'm going to go out on a limb. Given the number of people who own semi automatic copies of assault rifles, main battle rifles, semiauto fighting shotguns, and semi auto copies of submachineguns; and given the number of other weapons the gun banners are after, there will be armed resistance to any attempt to enforce a ban. I am willing to bet that between 800,000 and a million people, including me like as not, will get killed trying to enforce the ban in question, and very possibly a civil war started. I get a suspicion more kids will be killed in this fighting than it will ever save.

Hopefully, we won't find out if I'm right. I don't feel like getting killed and I don't feel like seeing my country wrecked in a civil war. I don't want to see ten kids killed to save one kid's life. And I don't like being under the power of people who have not considered these probabilities and further more won't bother to by all appearances.

A.X. Perez

[ Al, I predict the Age of Stupid-People In Charge is about to come to a just and well-deserved End. I know this is hard to believe, since most of history shows Stupid-People running things for their own personal benefit. It is past time for that to stop.—Editor ]

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

payment type

Re: Predictions (above)

I will never sacrifice the freedom of everyone in order to give a false illusion of safety to one, or a dozen, or a million. There is no such thing as safety. As someone very wise once said, it is as unsafe today as it was 10000 years ago, and will be 10000 years from now. The only difference is what is the danger you are looking out for. The danger of dying from a sabretooth tiger bite is non-existant these days. As is the danger of having your spaceship holed by Tholian Quantum Missiles. Danger changes, but is always there. Governments simply use a current danger to justify increasing tyranny. Nothing more. And nothing less.

As I have said before, once you answer the question "Why do you need to have a ______" you have already lost the argument if the answer is anything other than "I do not have to justify my rights." You have let THEM define the argument, set the terms by which you can respond, and set the bar for a limitation of some kind upon your rights.

Neale Osborn

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

payment type


If you're on Facebook, will you please go to the following page, and Share my long, long comment to Dale?


L. Neil Smith

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

payment type

Prodded by an article in Oleg Volk's blog, I sent off a note to my Senators. The influence of Neil's essay "Why did it have to be guns" is pretty obvious.

I'm posting this in as many places as I can to try to spread the "zero tolerance" attitude on this issue.


Dear Sen. *name*,

I am writing to express my intense opposition to any new "gun control" bills in general, and the Feinstein bill in particular.

I will be looking for you to oppose any such bills. We already have far too many so-called "gun control" laws.

This is a "zero tolerance" issue for me. If you do not strongly oppose any and all new gun control bills, I WILL remember and I WILL vote against you in the next election. If so, it will not matter what else you have done in the meantime, or who your opponent is—fail me on this issue and you WILL be opposed.

I am urging everyone I speak to on this issue to take the same "zero tolerance" attitude.


Paul Koning

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

payment type

My Open letter to Gun Owners of America:

Dear T. J. Mason

Thank you for contacting Gun Owners of America . This message is to confirm that we received an email from you.

-- email begins --

An Open Letter to the Gun Owners of America:

With all due respect to Senator Paul and his effort to require a 2/3 Senate majority to enact gun control legislation, I applaud him but vigorously disagree.

The Framers clearly defined the "a well-regulated militia" to be the whole people, subject to training in arms, and that the right to bear arms is a natural right not subject to government regulation at all. I further note that the Second Amendment applies to the People, and NOT to the States, since the States are not mentioned. I mean, nobody questions "taking the Fifth" in a State or municipal court.

Further, as I demonstrate in my essay The Three Pillars of the Second Amendment at L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise,, since disarming a militia is an act of war, gun control legislation at the level of the Feinstein bill and the proposed Illinois and New York regulations is, in fact, an act of treason.

Requiring 2/3 agreement to pass a treasonous bill does not make it less of an act of treason. The same logic applies to an attempt to actually Amend the Constitution in this manner, which would begin with 2/3 votes in each house and then move to 3/4 of the States. Every "yea" vote in the Senate, the House, and in any State government would by definition be an overt act of treason.

Senator Paul is certainly moving in the right direction, but even his proposed bill concedes a right of the people that the Framers never intended the government to regulate. Not by a 2/3 majority, not by any majority.



You can view and update your email here:
Ticket 201325587

ACCESS KEY: 201325587Z2083958379235708582

Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
Tel: 703.321.8585

T.J. Mason

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

payment type

Big Head Press