December 13, 1978, Milam's Notes
by Dante DeAmicis
There's been a lot of talk about who is in favor of saving and who is in favor of destroying Social Security. Let's review the options.
Dante presents some interesting options. I can suggest some additional alternatives. For example, a variation on his option 1 is that there's no reason why private plans need to be approved by the government. There are endless variations on option 2. Option 3 might be modified by requiring people to repay excess disbursements. Another option, not mentioned by Dante, is to leave Social Security in operation in its present configuration with the exception that participation would be voluntary. I'm sure that some of my readers can think of other options.
In June of 1984, I terminated my Social Security number. Today, I do not participated in activities that require one.
by Sam Aurelius Milam III
When I was a child, one of my elementary school teachers explained the legal difference between thought and action. No punishment, she explained, could be administered for merely talking about something, however heinous the contemplated action. Only when some harm was actually done to someone was there a cause of action. Until then, she explained, anyone could say, advocate, or plan anything. Verbal activities, in and of themselves, cause no harm and are therefore not actionable. I don't remember the date for sure, but I received this instruction sometime during the early or middle 50's, in Bexar County, Texas. During that same era, I sang along with the lines of a popular song of the time: "You can't go to jail for what you're thinking, matter of fact, neither can I! Just standing on the corner, watching all the girls go by."
Today, things are fundamentally different. Today, the police in Pacific Grove, California, arrested a group of alleged conspirators for planning to rob a McDonald's restaurant.1 No harm had yet been done. No money had yet been taken. They had merely planned it. Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman was recently condemned to life in prison for plotting to destroy various buildings, bridges, and tunnels.2 He didn't do it. He merely planned it. This reveals a fundamental change in the nature of government. It isn't a change in degree but a change in kind. Today, the space between your ears is no longer your own. Today, you can indeed go to jail for what you're thinking.
by Sam Aurelius Milam III
Are you tired of receiving all that junk mail? Here's a way to solve the problem and get just a little satisfaction at the same time. This idea is one of those rare instances when you can truly "use the system against itself".
When you receive junk mail from Company A, save it. When you receive junk mail from Company B, it's time for action. Go find the Company A junk mail and open both sets. Find the return card from each one. If there's no return card, use your address label from the envelope. In either case, mark a change of address for each company. On the blurb from Company A, change your address to the address of Company B. On the blurb for company B, change your address to the address of company A. Mail the changes of address. From then on, Company A will send your junk mail to Company B, and vice versa. This is, in effect, a junk mail virus. Every time one of the companies sells its mailing list the virus will reproduce. The junk mail advertising system has no antibodies against the virus. Consider: mail at each company is received by some clerk who will find it much easier to simply trash the unwanted stuff than to send a notice cancelling it. Your phoney addresses will multiply and circulate for all time to come, or at least until the companies go broke from sending useless junk mail to each other.
Amendment, Second Thoughts
by Sam Aurelius Milam III
According to the Second Amendment, the purpose of keeping and bearing arms is provide for a well-regulated militia. The purpose of this well-regulated militia is to defend the security of a "free State", whatever that is. A militia defending the state is very different from an individual defending himself, his property, or his liberty.In fact, governments generally regard armed individuals as a threat to the security of the state (free or otherwise). Thus from the point of view of government, any construction of the Second Amendment which allows just anybody be armed is inherently self-contradictory.
The amendment also provides that armed people can be regulated as a militia. The use of the word regulated in the amendment, in and of itself, ought to have caused the amendment to be rejected in it's entirety. Regulation is fatal to any right. The use of the word in the Bill of Rights is repugnant to the concept of rights.
With regard to militias, the word is one of those with a long and checkered past. It has many meanings. One in particular seems apropos to constitutional matters in America.
Using this definition, only draft-aged people who are citizens, who are in good health, who aren't homosexual, who don't have a drug problem, and who've registered for the draft have a right to be armed. If women aren't subject to the draft, then only men can be armed. A different definition, of which there are several, will indicate a right to bear arms for a different group of people. Even with the 1910 Webster definition, a different meaning of citizens, or of military duty, or of called upon will protect the right to keep and bear arms for a different group of people.
The well-regulated militia provision of this amendment defeats the alleged right in another way. There is no mention of who will regulate the militia, and thereby the keeping and bearing of arms. There is no definition of what constitutes necessary and sufficient regulation. Ultimately, the government does the regulating and the government decides how to do it. No wonder US citizens have been disarmed. The most generous assessment of this amendment reveals it to be self-contradictory. A more practical assessment makes it seem a lot more like a complete joke.
The only way to have a right is to exercise it. Merely "demanding" it is a waste of breath. If Americans want the right to bear arms, then they must end their pathetic reliance upon a flimsy guarantee written upon an even more flimsy piece of paper. Instead, they must carry guns around with them. Whether or not they can get away with it is a pretty good test for the existence of the right. That is, if Americans are not permitted by government to carry weapons whenever and wherever they choose, then the right is gone. In that case, it's time for Americans to make a tough decision. Either they must be content with a gun privilege, regulated by government, or they must begin whatever measures are necessary and proper to reclaim the right. Neither choice is very appealing.
Buck Hunter Shoots Off His Mouth
Hopeful Young LadyDear Hopeful Young Lady
Yours, or somebody else's?
If you don't want to keep receiving this newsletter, print 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.
Back issues or extra copies of this newsletter are available upon request.
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 publications. 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.
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.
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 postage stamps. I don't accept checks, money orders, 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's curious, I also accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. I'm sure you get the idea.
Sam Aurelius Milam III, editor