 |
|
|
 THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 802, December 21, 2014 Happy Zagmuk!
Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.org
Re: "An Unavoidable Truth About Terrorism" by L. Neil Smith (in this issue) L. Neil Smith uncharacteristically understates his case that terrorism is enabled by those who engage in victim disarmament. This incident in Australia yielded several victims. Those armed only with box-cutters who on 9/11 hijacked four jetliners filled with legally disarmed passengers, flight attendants, and flight-deck crew produced over 3,000 deaths on the day and in subsequent wars and police-state tactics produced casualties in the hundreds of thousands and monetary damages in the trillions of dollars—and this is true even if the jetliner strikes were multiplied by on-the-ground planting of additional explosives. In criminal law being even a passive conspirator before the fact in a crime which results in a death even of a fellow criminal conspirator makes one as responsible as if one had directly caused a death. Those who disarm victims making them vulnerable to lethal attack are as guilty as the terrorists who directly murder. Justice will not be satisfied until these disarmers are in the dock and if this required a revolutionary tribunal to bring statists to justice, those who signed the Declaration of Independence have given all of us the binding legal precedent. J. Neil Schulman
Re: "Neale's Weekly Gun Rant for 12-14-2014" by Neale Osborn Neale: Wyoming has constitutional carry for residents. No CCW needed. And "no guns" signs have no legal standing unless the business posts guards and has metal detectors ( they can trespass you, at most ). The Wyoming government issues CCWs so residents can obtain permits and drive into CO and NE without having to trunk their firearms to obey those two states' unconstitutional laws. And yes, Wyoming does need to stop discriminating against non-residents. They have to open carry unless they have a reciprocal permit. Best regards,
Re: "List of Companies to Patronize" (Letter from Jim Woosley) Turns out buying Dixie cups is a twofer—it supports an anti-liberal enterprise and they make GREAT reactive targets for plinking with a .22. The Smurf cups were especially satisfying. Bob Gibson
Re: "A is A: A Thing is Itself" by L. Neil Smith
At the time our Indonesian-in-Chief ordered his brother-in-Allah run down in Pakistan and whacked, I wondered why the ninjas hadn't "bagged and tagged" him. If they were going to haul away his corpse for garbage disposal at sea, couldn't they just as readily have taken him by the elbows and bum's-rushed him alive and gibbering with terror onto a helicopter for delivery to interrogators for long, comfortable conversations over tea and cookies? Jeez, consider what the guy knew.... Oh. Yeah. Richard Bartucci
Re: Cop Cameras (Letter from Frank Ney)
Frank, while I agree witht he sentiment, I can't agree with the nuts and bolts of this. For one, what the cops would be filming wouldn't be them. It would be us. You and I. And just because a cop walks past me on the street doesn't give the public a right to the video footage of the event. Much less a prosecutor. Secondly, if the video is out for the general public to view, its too difficult to prosecute the instance. Allegations of tained jury pools and witnesses that reveiwed it to get their story straihgt come up. I think a better solution would be to dump the footage to a secure server. Access to anyone who was filing a claim against the department. Access for DAs and the police themselves should be by warrant only—describing the incident they wanted to review and listing their probable cause that a crime was captured on the video. Records should be maintained for at least 30 years after the officer retired from the force. Strict rules should be in effect that any crime found on the video committed by anyone other than a police officer was not able to be used as evidence if it wasn't listed on the warrant the first time that section of footage was reviewed. Police officers should be forced, as part of continuing employment, to sign realeases that their body camera footage can be reviewed and any crime recorded on it can be used against them or thier fellow officers. 30 years after the officer retires maybe they could make the footage public. By then, anything short of murder would be past the statute of limitations. Best regards, Jeff Colonnesi
This site may receive compensation if a product is purchased |
|
|
|
Previous
Contents
Next
