|The Right to Protect One's Home, One's Business,
and One's Self
There has been a lot of talk and a number of laws both state and federal that have addressed the topic of Gun Control. Again, this is an example of the public and the legislature voting about something that the public does not even own, the right to defend and protect one's home and business. It is clear that this is one of the "unalienable rights" that was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. So this right predates the US Constitution and therefore any argument as to whether or not that document guarantees the individual's "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" is meaningless.
Please remember that the "Bill of Rights" in the US Constitution does not grant us these rights but instead is that document's acknowledgement of those preexisting rights. In other words the "Bill of Rights" is in the US Constitution to protect the US Government by preventing it from becoming so tyrannical that an armed revolt against that government would be justified. What this means is that the very government that would want to control or prevent the individual from bearing arms is the same government that the public needs to arm itself against in preparation for an armed revolt.
Now the right to carry weapons on public streets is a totally different issue and is something that the public and the legislature does have the right to vote on. The limiting factor however is that an individual must always have the right to carry the weapons necessary to protect him/herself from threats that one could expect to meet on those public streets. In other words, the government can not "disarm the public in the hope that this will make the streets safe" in a "cart before the horse" move but must first make the streets safe before it can expect the public to travel on those public streets without weapons.
One must keep in mind that the gun control laws only control the weapons that the "law abiding citizen" carries and not what is carried by the criminal or "thug". Therefore those laws actually do the opposite of what they claim to do by making the public more vulnerable to the criminal element.
Also, our government and the public have this whole issue of concealed weapons totally backwards. The laws against carrying weapons on public streets should only apply to exposed and visible weapons. The carrying of totally hidden weapons should be completely legal since the enforcement of any law to the contrary would require a mass sweep of searches of individuals that clearly would be unreasonable and unwarranted.
Private and public buildings on the other hand can require that weapons be turned in at the door before entering and can use detection equipment to insure that this requirement is followed.
Letter to the Editor
|in order to "straighten them out." And,
of course, the Boy Scouts would be free to ban Christians from all their
It's interesting to note that Christians complain when they have to suffer only a fraction of the oppression they have handed out to non-Christians (say, when they cannot post the Ten Commandments in a court room). Yet they show no hesitation in destroying the lives of millions of people with whom they disagree. Clearly, Christians do not play by the Enlightenment rules of tolerance and liberty. Indeed, they have spent much of the 20th century, at least in this country, forcing their beliefs on everyone else. Perhaps the time has come for the lovers of liberty to stop being so damned passive and instead counterattack by advocating laws which would criminalize Christian puritanism.
Now at this point, I hear people complaining that I am advocating force. Maybe. But consider that Christians and their allies in the government and police not only advocate violence against their foes, they actual practice it with their wars on "vice" and drugs. Note the double standard. When Christians and their allies use force (via the state) against homosexuals, sex workers, pornographers, abortion doctors and birth control providers, etc., they consider it to be legitimate. When the people the Christians attack dare to defend themselves, then it is called crime. I believe it was Ayn Rand who talked about the sanction of the victims.
Obviously, when you have two groups, one of which uses all means necessary to suppress its foes, and another which refuses to even defend itself, the first group will triumph regardless of whom has the superior principles. The trick has been that Christians and their allies in the state have managed to get the majority of people to accept their peculiar beliefs as the standard for legitimacy, while those of their foes are branded as "deviant" (the modem term for "heretic", if you please).
Something to think about.
— Joseph; Northridge, California
Liberty Video Movie Review
The Iron Giant
Reviewed by Don Cormier
One of the best films of 1999 was largely overlooked by audiences and award givers. That film was the animated feature, The Iron Giant.
The Iron Giant is a science fiction story about a huge alien robot who descends to earth in the late 1950's. The robot befriends a young boy, and learns about the ways of humans. Unfortunately, the government regards the robot as a threat, and tries to destroy him. The robot saves the young boy and the boy's town from a stray nuclear warhead, thus proving his benevolence and leading to the tale's happy ending.
Writers Brad Bird and Tim McCandies deserve congratulations for their witty spoofing of the science fiction genre. The 1951 classic, The Day The Earth Stood Still is heavily mined for material, and fans will recognize references to Frankenstein, E.T., and The X Files. However, The Iron Giant is more than a pastiche.
If an aging hippie were trying to explain to a five-year old what the Cold War was about, the result might be The Iron Giant. There's a tragic undertone to the story which is only slightly disguised by it's slapstick comedy. The writers have incorporated subtle references to McCarthyism, the Cuban missile crisis, and Vietnam — references which can hardly fail to provoke somber thoughts in those over forty. The film clearly teaches that governments are not to be trusted, and (somewhat less clearly) that force should be reserved for defence.
The Iron Giant is well worth seeing, but baby boomers should take the time to explain it to the kids.
This review reminded me of something that I saw about 20 or so years ago, while my oldest daughter was watching the Saturday morning cartoons. A lanky character stalked into view, turned back the lapel of his trench coat, revealing a badge, and said "Bureau of Federal Detection! That mean anything to you?"
I chuckled to myself, because the acronym for Bureau of Federal Detection is BFD. The meaning of BFD escaped my daughter as it apparently escaped the network censors, but it didn't escape me. I thought BFD was a dandy epithet for a government agency.
Buck Hunter Shoots Off His Mouth
Did you ever see a deer buck?
— Deer HunterDear Deer Hunter
I've seen lots of bucks, but I never saw one buck.
Cancellations — If you don't want to keep receiving this newsletter, print REFUSED, RETURN TO SENDER above your name and address, cross out your name and address, and return the newsletter. When I receive it, I'll terminate your subscription. You may also cancel by letter, e-mail, carrier pigeon, or any other method that gets the message to me.
Back Issues — Back issues or extra copies of this newsletter are available upon request.
Reprint Policy — Permission is hereby granted to reproduce this newsletter in its entirety or to reproduce material from it, provided that the reproduction is accurate and that proper credit is given. Please note that I do not have the authority to give permission to reprint material that I have reprinted from other sources. For that permission, you must go to the original source. I would appreciate receiving a courtesy copy of any document or publication in which you reprint my material.
Submissions — I solicit letters, articles, and cartoons for the newsletter, but I don't pay for them. Short items are more likely to be printed. I suggest that letters and articles be shorter than 500 words, but that's flexible depending on space available and the content of the piece. I give credit for all items printed unless the author specifies otherwise.
Payment — This newsletter isn't for sale. If you care to make a voluntary contribution, you may do so. The continued existence of the newsletter will depend, in part, on such contributions. I accept cash and U.S. postage stamps. I will accept checks or money orders only by prior arrangement. I don't accept anything that will smell bad by the time it arrives or anything that requires me to provide ID or a signature to receive it. In case anybody is curious, I also accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. I'm sure you get the idea.
— Sam Aurelius Milam III, editor