 |
|
|
 THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 562, March 21, 2010 "I'd had better hopes for America."
Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.org
Now I get it Before I start let me say I am one of those pro gun types who figures that the only problem with guns is how to get more of them into the hands of regular people. But that view was formed when I lived in Colorado and was surrounded by Libertarians and Conservatives who apparently hid their true natures because they wanted to hang out with Libertarians. Since then I've moved to South Dakota and due to economic necessity I have taken a job where I must deal with real Conservatives on a regular basis. I now understand why Liberals are afraid of gun owners. I am very nervous knowing that the ignorant redneck bigots I live around have the means to kill me easily at their disposal. I don't think I've heard the word "nigger" more since the last time I was horribly and brutally subjected to rap music by the neighbor in the apartment next door. What do you think their solution is to the terrorist problem? Gas the Arabs. ALL of them. Druggies? Shoot them in the head. For these folks gay people are gross and tying them to a fence is a real good plan. Water-boarding people is a great idea and the police should be doing it to anyone they suspect of being naughty. I really wish I was making this up. I really wish I could say these are minority views out here. I really wish that I could say only the 50 plus set is holding these ideas. But these people here are scary. I am ashamed to say I share a nation with them. I will say I am happy to have MY guns living around these backwards boobs. But I can say now that I really get why those people who are not gunnies are scared of these people. Intellectually I know the answer is universal gun ownership. But emotionally these maniacs scare the hell out of me and I find myself wishing they weren't armed. Scott Graves
Dear Editor, I would like to bring your attention to a new movie being made right now, Silver Circle, named for the silver rounds that start taking the place of FRNs in the near future after the US economy continues into the proverbial crapper: It's being made by a bunch of liberty types, as you might guess, and I think many of the people who read/write The Libertarian Enterprise will enjoy and appreciate the project. I heard an interview with the principals on FreeTalkLive.com show for 2010-03-19 beginning around 00:45, the "interview" show from the 2010 Liberty Forum in New Hampshire, if anyone is interested. Makes me wish I were more artistic. Curt Howland
Re: "Archimedes' .45" by L. Neil Smith Mr. Daniel Johnson of Calgary Canada gives fools a bad name. The picture that he based his anti-American (not anti-gun, anti-American because we insist on keeping our right to own and carry weapons) was at an event organized to assert and defend the right to open carry in the state of Michigan. How this could be done without going publicly and visibly armed is beyond me. If you drill down through to the article Mr. Johnson based his article on you will note that it describes illegal arrests made and ordered by the police chief of Milwaukee. It also describes American laws and diversity on the issue of open carry of handguns. The article in question is neither for or against open carry, though given its venue it could be expected to be pro open carry. It is simply descriptive of the facts including disagreements on the issue. Perhaps if he had chosen to read the article in question instead of engaging in an anti-American rant based on one picture Mr. Daniel Johnson would have something intelligent to say. Until then he will excuse me for taking the words of an Anglophone Canadian living in the land that murdered Louis Riel with more than one grain of salt. A.X. Perez
 The Us Constitution, Void Where Prohibited By Law! If the Constitution applies equally to ALL citizens, how can states individually restrict (infringe) on the rights of citizens, and deny citizens of another state the rights granted to it's own citizens? What, you think they don't? Try to travel from one state to another with your CONSTITUTIONALLY possessed guns, and tell me they don't! Even by purchasing an (unconstitutional) license to carry said weapon in your home state does not prevent you from being arrested by another state for illegaly carrying concealed. Every year, still more restrictions on Constitutionally acknowledged rights are proposed, passed, and enforced, and the Supreme Court fails to overturn them. Now, it is bad enough that professional licenses are not accepted by all the states. But that is nowhere near as bad as requiring the purchase of a license to excercise a right that the Constitution states "Shall not be infringed", then allowing another state to deny even THAT license's validity! As some of you know, the 2nd Amendment is my personal bugaboo. In my opinion, without full and complete enforcement of the 2nd, none of the other amendments are guaranteed. "Ridiculous!", you say? Well, I'll ask you this- if the government tries to take away your OTHER rights, how can you stop them, if we don't have the means to defend ourselves, and even removethe government if (hopefully NEVER) necessary? "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are
the peoples' liberty's teeth."
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil
interference—they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
Now, I'm not sure about you, but these two quotes from the Father of our Country sum it all up. Let ANY government, Local, State, OR Federal, infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms, for any reason, is not only un-Constitutional, it is foolish and dangerous. So why do we allow ANY government to declare ANY part of the Constitution VOID WHERE PROHIBITED BY LAW? I wrote this to counter an argument for "reasonable restrictions to own and carry guns", and thought it might strike a chord here! Neale Osborn
Credit where credit is due In "Another letter from A.X. Perez" it was L. Neil Smith who brought my attention to the English language error in the sign. And I quote:
To be honest I was so incensed by what was said my mind corrected grammar on how it was said. Thank you Neil for bringing this to my attention so that I could add commentary on grammar and misuse of the lingo. A.X. Perez
The "Sense-us" Just curious. What are you doing with your census form? Filling it out? Throwing it away? Doing a partial? Scamming it? Fish wrapper? Rolling a fattie in it? (Yecchh!) Lining the bird cage? Direct all responses to this publication, or privately to me, whatever your level of comfort. John Taylor
Re: "The Answer to Abortion" by Rob Sandwell Rob Sandwell, in his article "The Answer to Abortion", made some rather interesting comments. The general thrust of his article was that pro-abortion was pro-statist and anti-abortion was, in his view, anti-statist. Really??? Abortion is one of many options for preventing birth—note I said 'birth'—as are other options such as the pill, condoms, spermicidal gel, diaphragms, etc. Each of these has a certain level of 'effectiveness'. For example, the 'rhythm method' has such a low level of effectiveness that it's alternative spelling is 'pregnant'. Some of these methods act before the egg is fertilized, others don't. Specifically, RU-486, the 'morning after' pill, like abortion, is designed to prevent birth after conception occurs, while gels, diaphragms, condoms and the like are supposed to prevent fertilization. Each method requires a choice to be made—by the potential mother. That is an individual choice, not a state choice. Sandwell makes a claim that if we just eliminated the 'state' we'd eliminate the need for abortion. After all, it's the state's 'incentivizing' of irresponsible (his emphasis, not mine) sexual behavior that fosters all this need for abortion. (Really. And here I thought the state cared more about incentivizing the welfare mother.) He goes so far as to claim that not only would a non-statist society eliminate the discretionary choice towards abortion, but would also eliminate pregnancies due to rape and molestation (Okay, he didn't specifically mention molestation, but it is part and parcel of the rape-pregnancy category.) Yeah, Sandwell? You can guarantee this will happen? Because you're wrong. Oh sure, the chances of a rapist/molester committing a second crime under a free, gun-toting society drops to essentially nil, but you won't eliminate first-offenders. Thus there will always be a need for abortion. And, quite frankly, I cannot see where abortion should ever be removed as a choice. (To say the least, how in Sam Hell can an anti-state society *enforce* the no abortion policy? Once the state is removed, there wouldn't be anyone to do so!) While I cannot support government funding for abortion, the idea that a woman should have the right to choose abortion is one of the few things with which I agree with the liberals and progressives. Derek Benner
In a letter in TLE 561, A.X. Perez presented a sign saying, "Obtaining force labor or services is a crime under Texas law. Call the national human trafficking hotline, 1-888-373-7888." Quick, somebody call and report the Texas government for forcefully "collecting more than 60 separate taxes, fees and assessments" (www.window.state.tx.us/taxes/) and for forcing Texas residents to spend time and money for licensing and registration of hundreds of activities (www.texasonline.com/portal/tol/en/gov/2/6). Bill St. Clair
So this is how it all started Great video using silent movie clip to parody our current "elected leaders". NSFW if you like to lol like I do. Regards, Chris Claypoole
If you're a Darkover fan you know about Cleindori. Killed for challenging a requirement that Tower Keepers (the leaders of teams who managed technology based on psychic powers) she was revered by the common people of Darkover for making laran (psychic technology) more accessible to the common people. Her story was never written, though it is frequently referred to and foreshadowed. This is the antithesis of the star Trek Prime Directive, which would militate to keep technology under the control of a starfaring ruling class in the real word. This fits neatly into the antitech dreams of many would be rulers, types who reject switching over to nuclear power to reduce mankind's carbon footprint for example. From the Ewoks of the Starwars universe to the natives of Pandora in Avatar we are bombarded with images of nontechnological races having some mystical connection to the Universe that allows them to whip on enemies equipped with high tech weapons, transportation, and communication. The message is clear, return to the simple ways of the peasants of medieval Europe or better, the tribal people of the North America's Plains and Forests and we will be happy. The promoters of this will of course live in their manor houses and trading posts and enjoy all the benefits of electricity, running water and antibiotics. Perhaps it would make the world a better place if someone of James Cameron's undoubted talent was to make a movie about someone who tries to get tech into the hands of the common folks. A high tech retelling of the story of Prometheus. Or maybe a telling of Cleindori's story, with the permission of whoever controls the Darkover franchise, of course. A.X. Perez
TLE AFFILIATE
Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates. We cheerfully accept donations! |
|
|
|
Previous
Contents
Next
