Big Head Press

L. Neil Smith's
Number 579, July 18, 2010

"I eventually came to the conclusion that the police didn't
actually know anything about the laws they were enforcing."

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publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication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!]

Letter from A.X. Perez

Letter from Doug Heard

Letter from Kent McManigal

Letter from Paul Bonneau

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership ( Recently re-ran an article recounting the 1946 "Battle of Athens" about the time in 1946 when residents of McMinn County Tennessee were required to use armed force to get control of their government back from political crooks.

The 2nd Amendment isn't about target shooting, hunting, self defense, or even state militias (as a bone to those who claim, in spite of reason and recent Supreme Court rulings, that the RKBA is about collective defense, not a private right). It is about the people having the means to hand to protect themselves from politicians and government agents who knowingly and deliberately abuse their power.More importantly, it is a warning to those people (and I use the term as Robert E. Lee used it to describe Yankee soldiers) to behave themselves so that we don't really have to rise up in armed rebellion against them.

Politicians pushing gun control are like yellow painters trying to get longhorns to submit to polling.

A.X. Perez

Like this? Why not pay the author!
Select amount then click "Donate Now"

Pay to A.X. Perez

Re: "Not in My Name" by Matthew Sims

Mathew, while I agree with most of what you wrote, I can't see how anyone in this country can say, "not in my name" unless they are in armed rebellion against the government.

"I am by no means a pacifist. I will fight to the death to defend what's mine from an attacker."

"Any taxes taken from me are taken by force, which fact I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. I would not willingly pay one cent nor give one minute of my time to attack people in another country and kill their women and children through embargoes of food and medical supplies."

These two statements are contradictory unless you are now in jail or hiding in a cave shooting every person you see who works for government at any level.

My problem is that I don't know if slowing down the government juggernaut is good or is hoping it will get worse so the revolution will start sooner and clean out the bastards. But I don't claim they are not doing it in my name because I bought a gallon of gas and paid the tax; I bought a computer and paid the tax etc. And as long as you aren't in jail or shooting government representatives they are doing it in your name.

Doug Heard

Like this? Why not pay the author!
Select amount then click "Donate Now"

Pay to Doug Heard

Re: "Letter from Don Childers"

I don't know about you, but I automatically assume that any dramatic story I am forwarded in an email is completely fictional. And usually created and forwarded to promote a particular agenda, such as whipping up panic over "illegal immigration".

I only forwarded and commented on the one about the supposed home invasion as a way to illustrate the point that people avoid thinking about the issue that actually matters, and focus on something they personally want to make an issue of.

Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine anyone would think the email spoke of an actual event, or I would have looked for confirmation myself. I am sorry for the confusion, but I think my point still remains proven.

Kent McManigal
Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner

Like this? Why not pay the author!
Select amount then click "Donate Now"

Pay to Kent McManigal

RE: Enquiring Minds and the Oil War by L. Neil Smith

Just to expand a bit, Adrian asked, "...Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding in Afghanistan, and the Taliban would not turn him over."

First, what does it mean, "the Taliban would not turn him over". It means one guy, or just a few guys at the top of the Taliban, refused. Does it make sense to invade and wreck a country and kill thousands because a few guys (not under the control of the poor schmucks being killed) refused a demand? Why should others pay for their shortcomings?

And one had to wonder at the form of the demand. If I was at the head of this government, and wanted someone like Osama, I'd send an expert negotiating team over there to talk to the Taliban, along with a pile of bribe money to grease the skids. I'd come back with Osama in a cage. What I would NOT do is rattle swords and put the demand in a form that was guaranteed to be rejected. That is, if I really wanted Osama.

On the other hand, if I just wanted to start a war, well that is the easiest thing in the world. The last thing to do, in that case, would be to capture Osama.

Paul Bonneau

Like this? Why not pay the author!
Select amount then click "Donate Now"

Pay to Paul Bonneau


Rational Review
Rational Review

Rational Review News Digest
Rational Review News Digest

Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates.
We cheerfully accept donations!

Big Head Press