 |
|
|
 THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 703, December 30, 2012 "Put some nice, long, jaggedy teeth in the Bill of Rights"
Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.org
Marianne Dear Ken: A number of people have asked about a reference I made in last week's The Libertarian Enterprise about somebody named "Marianne". One person compared her to the American Uncle Sam, but for a number of reasons, I found that disgusting. In the first place, Uncle Sam, as we have come to know him, is no friend to individual liberty. In his most famous portrait, he is pointing a finger, imperiously ordering young men to throw themselves mindlessly into the meatgrinder of World War I. For another, he always reminds me of that syphilitic butcher Abraham Lincoln. When I was a little boy, I thought they were the same guy. And as uncles go, considering what he's done to generation after generation of young American males, he's a lot like Uncle Ernie in Tommy. But I digress. Marianne is the embodiment of the French Revolution, a beautiful, scantily-clad creature who stands explicity for liberty and reason—the hilarious irony being that the model for the bust accompanying this letter was Brigitte Bardot, the living embodiment of statism and stupidity. In 21st century America, liberty needs a logo. It ain't gonna be Madonna. Or Britney Spears. Or Lindsey Lohan. Regrettably it won't be Marg Hellgenberger, who it turns out I was wrong about. She's just another butt-stupid gun-grabber who would love to see gun owners slaughtered. I guess I've already nominated MissBattleBorn. But I'm reminded of the only violent acts that occurred during the Million Moron March—committed by gun-banners. Isn't it wonderful how loving, gentle, and nonviolent victim disarmers always turn out to be? Not. L. Neil Smith
Was that worth reading? The Leftist rag Huffington Post has published a report that the petition to enact "Meaningful gin reform" including a ban on "military style assault rifles and large capacity magazines" has received more signatures than any other to date. say it's time to start a counter petition that garners more signatures. I'm not skilled at writing such so I'm asking that one of y'all write it. Be firm but not confrontational, polite but not obsequious, stay on the side of politely asking, not begging. I promise I'll sign every one of the petitions y'all write. A.X. Perez
[ See next letter—Editor ] Was that worth reading? A Petition to counter the HuffPo "Assault Weapon Ban" petition. WE, The Undersigned, being fully informed as to the intent of the Founding Fathers when they refused to ratify the Constitutiion without the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, such that they included a version of the 2nd Amendment in their several State Constitutions fully understood that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was necessary to guarantee individual freedom from oppression by governments both foreign and domestic, AND from criminals of all sorts, oppose all restrictions OF said Right to Keep and Bear Arms. We further opposse ALL attempts to limit Caliber, Capacity, Accessories, Style, Color, or type of Action that American Citizens may Possess, Carry, or Own. We consider ALL attempts to do so to be in direct violation of the one of the Constitutionally Enumerated rights we consider necessary to individual freedoms and liberties. Therefore, we demand that ALL elected officials promptly and loudly pronounce their support for the 2nd Amendment and oppose completely and totally ANY further attempts to restrict the Constitutional Rights of the American People. We then order our elected officials to IMMEDIATELY proceed towards the elimination of of ALL Federal, State, and Local laws that infringe upon that right. We hold that ONLY individuals, on their private property, have the right to restrict or deny the presence of firearms. How's that, Friends? Neale Osborn
[ Here's one already up—Editor]
[ See previous letter—Editor ]
Was that worth reading? Two thumbs up from this corner! (That said, I always like to see included an explicit statement, however worded, that the BoR does not establish, but rather affirms pre-existing 'conditions' typically referred to as "rights". But, I have no quibble at all (unusual!) with the words as written! BZ! John Taylor
[ See previous letter—Editor ] Was that worth reading? Re: Marg Helgenberger in "MissBattleBorn" by L. Neil Smith Neil, You referred to Marg as Libertarian. I don't know her (not much of a TV watcher) so I looked her up. I wonder what you make of this paragraph from the Wikipedia article about her: "On December 19, 2012, in response to the Sandy Hook killings, author Joyce Carol Oates tweeted sardonically, "If sizable numbers of NRA members become gun-victims themselves, maybe hope for legislation of firearms?" Helgenberger responded to Oates, "One can only hope, but sadly I don't think anything would change." The tweet drew attention and outrage with accusations of hypocricy as Helgenburger herself has made a living acting on violent TV shows and like most Hollywood actors, is protected by armed security." Paul Koning
Was that worth reading? Disconnect "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." The State of Texas celebrates Constitution week the week of the 17th of September. Social Studies teachers from Sixth Grade through Twelfth are expected to make sure that their students memorize and understand the Two sentences of the Declaration that precede the one quoted above: "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," but not this sentence. Of course that is ridiculous, that third sentence is the point of the whole thing. So I take the time to make sure they learn it and make sure they understand that there is a time when good folk need to be naughty. So far I haven't been fired over it. Apparently some of my fellow teachers need to be taught this lesson, When I was stating that many people might forcibly resist surrendering their assault weapons a twenty three year old kid (they hire them younger these day, Oh wait I was 23, uh never mind) in the teachers' lounge bull session thought I was crazy (oh wait, he already does, it's just that I gave him a new reason.). He could not imagine that decent, honest people would resist a gun ban by force. Mind you, he's a history teacher whose lessons a couple of months ago included that day at Lexington and Concord. Hopefully he will outgrow this disconnect, but isn't 23 the age at which people are supposed to be ready to rebel and 59 the age one is too settled in one's way to rebel, to listen to what "prudence dictates"? Disturbing. A.X. Perez
Was that worth reading? A Gun for Everyone (except for government)—YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8wLa3-Q2CU& L. Neil Smith
Was that worth reading? Would SOMEBODY please explain this to me? Let me preface this by saying I don't support the NRA. They do more harm to the pro-gun movement by collaborating on the creation of gun laws. I do not support public schools. I believe them to be liberal indoctrination stations, little more than state mandated jails for the young. It is the duty of parents to provide for the education of their children, not to simply surrender control of their children for 8 hours a day to union-backed imbeciles. I home school. I am not a christian. I am, in fact, an agnostic at most, an atheist more likely. I am the type of Libertarian the Libertarian Party hates. I am vehemently in favor of eliminating 99% of gun laws. So, now you know where I stand. I am NOT going to discuss gun ownership here. That is fodder for another article. Arguments over whether people should be permitted to own guns are off topic and will be deleted. Stick to the question asked, please. Feel free to answer the polls, and explain your answers in a comment. Now, to the question I need answered. Would someone PLEASE explain to me why it is an evil thing to suggest we need armed guards in all public schools. Please note- I don't necessarily mean POLICE guards. Just trained, armed guards. It can be teachers, janitors, volunteers, security guards from private security services, or even National Guardsmen doing their 2 weeks a year. We do not have a problem with armed guards in banks and armored cars. We don't have a problem with armed guards at our courthouses and public buildings. We don't have a problem with armed guards at our airports. But we DO have a problem with armed guards protecting our most valuable possessions~ Our children. I am an armed American. I have a CCW. I have training in the use of firearms, in proper concealed carry, and when NOT to use a weapon. I paid for it myself, because I feel it is necessary if I am going to carry. I got the training years ago, when I lived where it was not required to get a license to carry open, and easy as hell to get a CCW. Now, where I currently live, I needed nothing but a Hunter Safety card and references to get my CCW ( which is more than I think is permitted under the 2nd Amendment, but I digress). I carry quite often. Even though I homeschool, I would volunteer a day or two a week to stand guard over your children. I wonder why so many of you consider this somehow abhorrent. Our money, our court system, our government buildings, and our president are somehow more worthy of the expense of protecting than your children are. Please tell me why!!! Neale Osborn
[ Oh, Gezz, Neale, that's easy. Yer Average Person™ is a fookin' idiot, functionally speaking. I thought everybody knew that. Oh... well... "Everybody"? I see...—Editor ] Was that worth reading?
TLE AFFILIATE
|
|
|
|
Previous
Contents
Next
