Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.org
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publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication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!]
Re: “Justice Schmustice” by L. Neil Smith (in this issue)
Ah, yes.
The Bill of Rights is already shot full of holes.
Starting from the bottom, the 10th and probably the 9th, effectively invalidated by Wickard vs. Filburn, where FDR—despite having picked most of the justices—had to threaten to increase SCOTUS to twenty members, the final 11 being his martinets.
And then we have the 4th amendment vs. such abominations as the bank “secrecy” laws.
And much else…
BTW, did you read about the judge who ignored usual procedure to exonerate some person on the grounds of an emergency and a crises, i.e. “defending the planet”?
Best
Nils
[email protected]
Was that worth reading?
Then why not:
Re: “You Go First: The Peace Amendment” by L. Neil Smith
The Only politician I can think of who stepped down from office to serve in war was Theodore Roosevelt. BTW, it is worth mentioning that his sons, grandsons, great-grandsons, and at least one cousin served in WWI, WWII, and Vietnam. So maybe you should add to the Peace Amendment a requirement that their kids and grandkids also be sent to fight, or at least be liable to be sent to war if necessary.
A.X. Perez
[email protected]
Was that worth reading?
Then why not:
Regarding the Letter Column: “Letter from Vin Suprynowicz”, the following response has come to my attention and I direct it to yours:
In re: Mr. Suprynowicz’s letter, titled: “Finally, a school-shooting solution Democrats can embrace!”, referencing “Pensylvania District Equips Classrooms With Bucket of Rocks to Stone Mass Shooters”
On top of all other considerations of the overwhelming stupidity of this, the Democrats have apparently neglected considerations of physics, and probably of the fundamental American sports. If the entire class were made of middle—to high-school baseball pitchers (softball does not count—that’s not sexist, that’s physics), and all the stones had the approximate mass of baseballs, and assuming that the rocks were all in hand when the shooter entered the classroom and the class dispersed around the back of the class room and not still huddled around the bucket, there is some possibility that enough of the stones would hit the shooter to be an inconvenience, rather than a nuisance. But the shooter gets 1-2 shots off before the first wave of stones hits, and another 2-5 before the second, and each subsequent, wave of stones hits.
Whereas if at least two of the students were trustee pistol shooters using man-stopping calibers and loadings (I would recommend Hornady Critical Defense in .40 Cal with 506 ft-pounds at the muzzle) with at least 1000 rounds of training shooting at human sized targets (a small amount of tactical training reinforced with range time would be a bonus), it would be over before the shooter got a second shot off. If the ROTC students at Parkland had been so equipped—or their coach—this would have barely been a blip in the evening news. Like in Maryland.
I’m not inclined to believe in conspiracy theories of the “let’s set up this school for a shooting to use as an excuse to go after guns,” but I do believe that the Parkland and similar situations is a wholly predictable outcome of anti-Constitutional gun-free zoning, denigrating self defense training among the young, and policies that attempt to ignore or dope potentially violent students but leaving them substantially free to engage in such actions. And it’s painfully obvious that the liberal response to exploit the next predictable tragedy was fully ready this time. The students at Parkland were, if not specifically, generally set up to be victims, and indoctrinated to respond by attacking the groups that would have died to defend their rights and their lives—had they been here—rather than the liberal polices that turned them into defenseless targets.
TJ Mason
[email protected]
Twitter: @oneamericanvoic
Was that worth reading?
Then why not:
Andy Jackson Was Right
Nicholas Biddle is reputed to have said, “I can destroy any business I want.” Mister Biddle was the president of the Bank of the United States and at the time was trying to show how the economic power of the BUS was vital to the survival of the US. Instead he convinced people that Andrew Jackson was right in vetoing its re-charter on the grounds that the bank was too powerful. Whether he actually said it or not, Mr. Biddle’s quote expresses why people fear a strong central bank in the US.
Lately it’s been made evident that it’s not just a central bank we need to fear. Michael Corbat, CEO of Citibank, has decided to use the power of his bank to require manufacturers and sellers of firearms to conform to his notions of “best practices” for their industry. Basically he has told them they must pretty much conform to the gun banners agenda or lose access to his company’s credit services.
For the hell of it we will concede that some gun controls are necessary and even constitutional. I’m not making this concession, but I need the rhetorical device. These controls should be imposed by an elected legislature bound by constitutional limits (I said some, not Diana Feinstein’s infamous “Mr. And Mrs. America, turn them all in.”). A banker has none. Operation Chokepoint without limit. The rights of the American people in the power of the banking industry.
And not just gun rights. How many times can you say fuck in a movie or flash a teat? Too many times for some second vice president of Citibank and you’re out of business. Sell tobacco or marijuana? Better get the president of Wells Fargo’s permission first. And remember, there is no constitutional limit on how these people use their power.
Plutocracy indeed.
Time to start moving accounts out of Citibank if possible. Refinance car and home loans with someone else. Transfer accounts to another bank, or close them. If you have a long term debt with Citi that you can’t transfer pay it off quickly. Close your revolving store credit accounts handled by Citi.
Don’t let American bankers believe they have the power or right to legislate and enforce laws.
The reason I am insistent that Citibank get its lumps over this (as in stock losing lots of value, Corbat getting tossed out) is so that the other bankers don't get the same idea. An example must be made.
A.X. Perez
[email protected]
Was that worth reading?
Then why not:
Why You Don’t Want to Repeal the Second Amendment
With apologies to Justice John Paul Stevens:
There are several reasons why you really, really don’t want to repeal the Second Amendment:
A) The Second Amendment does not create the right of individuals to arm themselves, it promises the government will not interfere with people exercising that right. Repealing the2nd Amendment will not extinguish that right, it will simply put the government in a situation of possible conflict with the people.
B) There is this pesky thing called the Ninth Amendment. This one states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Or put another way, the right to keep and bear arms would still be enshrined in the Ninth even if the Second was repealed. Furthermore, the Ninth Amendment absolutely guarantees individuals the right to protect themselves and people for whose wellbeing they are responsible from assaults on their lives, persons, liberty, and/or property. This guarantees them the right to the tools needed to achieve this end. Again, a guarantee of a right to keep and bear arms.
C) About the only way you are going to find out that a honest person is armed is if he uses his weapon in self defense. If you arrest him for being in possession of a weapon used appropriately in self defense he will beat the rap on the grounds of "Necessitas non habet legem," if his lawyer is worth a Continental Dollar. A law that keeps getting beat in court is not a law, it makes a mockery of the concept of law. It weakens respect for other law. It corrodes legitimate government, to the degree such a thing exists.
Or in simple terms, suggesting the repeal of the 2nd Amendment is a truly stupid idea. Monumentally stupid. The Platonic ideal of gone gump ideas.
A.X. Perez
[email protected]
Was that worth reading?
Then why not:
This site may receive compensation if a product is purchased
through one of our partner or affiliate referral links. You
already know that, of course, but this is part of the FTC Disclosure
Policy
found here. (Warning: this is a 2,359,896-byte 53-page PDF file!)
TLE AFFILIATE
