|
|
|
Weapon of Choice Sam Aurelius Milam III For a long time now, concerns for children have provided an excuse for people with an agenda to increase the power of government. Does somebody want restrictions on what can be published?1 Define "child pornography" and publishers no longer have a right to publish. They must be careful that what they're publishing doesn't violate the restriction. They have permission to publish whatever isn't prohibited. Does somebody want to regulate hiring practices? Define "child labor" and people no longer have a right to hire workers. They have permission to hire as permitted by regulations. Does somebody want to regulate who can buy a product? Impose an age limit on its use and customers no longer have a right to buy it. They must always be ready to demonstrate that they're qualified customers. They're permitted to buy as the authorities allow. The list seems endless, and it's all for the "good of the children". Even though age limitations are entirely arbitrary, they might at least seem to avoid restricting adults, and impose restrictions only on children. However, they don't operate that way at all. The purchase of alcohol or tobacco is a good example. The reformers have enacted ID requirements as a prerequisite to such purchases, allegedly to prevent sales to children. Who has to show ID to buy alcohol or tobacco? Right. Adults do. I'm tired of having children used as an excuse for the never-ending erosion of my liberty. I'm no longer willing to trade my liberty for the "good of the children". If the reformers can't find ways to protect children without stripping us of our liberty, then I say "don't protect the children". The liberty of the people is far more important than the well-being of the children.
|
Letters to the Editor
Sam, I enjoy your newsletter very much. But I must request that you remove my name and address from your mailing list. You see, I've found you on the internet and wish to save you the cost of a USPS stamp every month! Thanks and best wishes, John; San Jose, California
Thank you. editor
To: <frontiersman@ida.net> Re: February's lead article. It is my opinion, based upon the news items regarding the intercepted terrorist messages, that there was sufficient knowledge not only to stop the attack before it happened, but also to identify the perpetrators. I believe the only reason the information will never be made public is that it would confirm my opinion. Sir James the Bold
Dear Mr. Aurelius ... I have decided that the only way to really effect a change is through the pen. I want to kill them all, but we know it doesn't work that way. Ask McVeigh, Koresh, the victims of the Ruby Ridge incident, any devout Southern boy, the list goes on and on. My sense of fair play demands retribution, but it does not seem to work that way. One day, if it does, I will go that way. At any rate, how are property prices up in that area? How bout in the mountains. I must have mountains to live in, and I need out of this state. Too damn oppressive. What's next? Brown shirts? SS or what? Hitler youth? We could call them Bush Youth. Give them daggers with elephants on them and outfit them with oil money. Fuckin bastards. I guess I rant and rave too much, so I will sign off. Thank you for the sub and the other cool stuff. Name withheld
Here are examples of property currently for sale in this area: 1 1/4 acres, $83,900; 6 acres, $124,900; 10 acres, $114,900. Each piece of land has a house of one sort or another. Please note, this is river bottom land, not mountains. editor
Hi Sam I always look forward to your newsletter. Although your ideas at times seem fanatical, I somehow often agree. However, in your last issue I was shocked by your headline: "The people should always be more heavily armed than the police." If you really feel this way, why do we even have police? I don't know how to use a gun and wouldn't want to learn, nor would I want my wife or children using a gun. We pay taxes so that the police will protect us, and so we can spend our time on more productive and more enjoyable activities. Call me lazy, but I disagree with you this time! Tom; Redwood Shores, California
I didn't intend to suggest that you should be required to own a gun. Indeed, if you don't know how to use one, then you're better off without it. Of course, you're even better off learning to use it. My intended meaning is that the people, as a population, should be more heavily armed than the police. I'll go even further than that. The population must be prepared to defend itself against any armed force that the government might send against the people. Thus, if the government uses army tanks and armed helicopters to attack a civilian residence near Waco, the people should thereafter arm themselves with anti-tank rocket launchers and surface-to-air guided missiles. It's the only way to have any hope at all of protecting the rights of the people from the otherwise inevitable destruction of those rights by the government. In any case, every individual should be able to make his own choice regarding gun ownership. Nobody should be either required to own a gun or prohibited from owning one. You certainly should have the right to determine if your children will have access to guns. However, I think that you should at least make sure that they are taught how NOT to use guns. The chances are that, sometime during his life, anybody will encounter a gun and handle it. Ignorance can be fatal. I reported one such case in "Teach Your Parents Well", in the May 1994 issue. I've reprinted that article in this issue. Finally, it's foolish to rely on the police for protection. Not only are they unable to protect you, they're more dangerous than the other, non government, criminals. editor
|
Buck Hunter Shoots Off His Mouth Dear Buck I'd like to look more sexy. Do you think Victoria's Secret might help? Unsure
Dear Unsure I don't know who she is. She hasn't told me her secret. I don't know if it will help you or not. Acknowledgments
editor
Frontiersman 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
|
|
|