Big Head Press

L. Neil Smith's
Number 480, August 10, 2008

"And that's why we like guns."

  Table of Contents Contents Next Next

Letters to the Editor

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publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication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 Carl Bussjaeger

Letter from A.X. Perez

Letter from Al Newberry

Letter from Alan R. Weiss

Letter from Paul Bonneau

Letter from John Higgins

Re: "The Lesser of Two Evils" by Sean Gangol (TLE Number 479, August 3, 2008):

"Barr has supposedly changed his stance on these issues; however I have hard time believing that this neo-con has repented and become a die-hard Libertarian. "

Agreed. So far, Barr is not even talking a good game. Even if he were, I still wouldn't believe in his "libertarian conversion" until he apologizes for what he has done (war on—some—drugs, medical marijuana, religious oppression, USA PATRIOT, ad nauseam), starts making restitution to the people he has damaged, and starts working to reverse the laws and policies he helped create.

Yep; and flying pigs will have snowball fights in the netherworld.

Carl Bussjaeger
carl -+AT+- bussjaeger -+DOT+- org

Re: "Letters We Get, Already" by L. Neil Smith in the last issue.

Regarding so called First Amendment limitations brought up by Mr. Lerner in his response to "Popgun Parade":

There have been Supreme Court decisions recognizing the legality of animal sacrifice and the use of peyote in religious rituals.

The Fifth Circuit Court has ruled in favor of Rastafarians using ganja as a sacrament. Basically, you have to show that a religious practice involves a violation of people's rights (involuntary human sacrifice or stealing people's livestock to sacrifice) or a scam (for example, the working girls in LA who tried to start a religion that practiced temple prostitution and various televangelists caught skimming the collection plates) to beat a freedom of religion claim.

As far as I can tell there are no statutes outlawing libel, or the front counters of grocery checkout lines would be bare of literature. However, you can be sued for libel and slander (or challenged to a duel if there are any jurisdictions which still practice the code duello left on the planet!). If your words start a riot or fight you can be charged with provoking a fight or riot. Freedom of speech does not mean you are free from having to answer for the consequences of your words. On the other hand, no one has the right to stop you from seeking to express the truth or express, your religious or political feelings. Even the worst enemies of freedom are forced to respect this limit if you push hard enough. For example, It is hard to get free speech restricted during peacetime (one of the main reasons tyrants love war so much.). Even antiporn laws have to be justified by exposé (usually libelous) about exploitation of children and impoverished, drug addicted, and/or mentally deficient young people away from parental supervision.

The only restriction on freedom is whether you violate someone else's rights.

How I pray, what I say, and how I arm myself are not inherently a threat to anyone's rights until and unless I steal, murder, or otherwise offer harm to another person.

Or at least that's the way it should be. I have spent a lot of my life trying to turn an imperfect world into a less imperfect world.

Backing down on First and Second Amendment rights is not the way to accomplish this.

A.X. Perez
perez180ehs -+AT+- hotmail -+DOT+- com

Hi L. Neil.

Re: "Letters We Get, Already" by L. Neil Smith in the last issue.

I was inspired by your article in response to your hate mail (okay, maybe not hate).

Suppose you were a doctor. You have a patient come to you with a progressive disease which you know will respond to a particular medicine. So you prescribe the therapeutic dose of the right medicine to your patient. Suppose your patient hates taking medicine and decides to go to another Doctor for a second opinion.

The patient insists to the other Doctor, Dr. N. Cre-Mentlist, that he hates taking medication and that you, Dr. X. Treem, had tried to tell him to take 100 mg of L-Berty three times daily. Dr. N.C. then sympathizes with the patient (whose name I have left out due to Hipaa regulations) that "That X.Treem guy is kind of a nut. He gives us doctors a bad name. I do agree with him in principle. I do think you need to be taking L-Berty, but my colleague goes too far. I'm going to prescribe you 50mg, which you will only have to take once per day. Is that better?" The patient leaves happy with the compromise and begins to take the course of treatment, on the way bragging to you that his other doctor gave him the medicine, but didn't go crazy and give him too much. You warn the patient that 50 mg once per day is not a therapeutic dose, and will have little if any effect. The patient just calls you crazy and leaves.

Weeks go by. The patient finds that his disease is still progressing, albeit at a slightly slower rate than before. He complains to Dr. N. Cre-Mentlist, but Dr. N.C. tells him to be patient, that it will take longer for him to heal, and increasing the dosage will only turn others off to L-Berty in addition to causing other problems from "getting better too fast." After a month, the patient's disease has continued to progress and the patient is now completely turned off. He goes to a third doctor, Dr. N. Slaver, and tells him "Two doctors have prescribed me L-Berty, and I still keep getting worse. L-Berty doesn't work." Dr. N.Slaver agrees with the patient and says "those nuts aren't worthy to practice medicine. Most of my colleagues, who are worthy, know that another course of treatment is the only way for a patient like you. So Dr. Slaver prescribes a course of 2-Bad-4-U, in slowly increasing increments, "until you are cured." The patient leaves happy. On the new medication, the patient immediately has a feeling of well-being and security, feeling he is being cured. Although his disease continues to get worse, the patient is lulled into feeling better every day, thanks to his new medicine. In two weeks, the patient is dead from a combination of his disease and toxicity from the 2-Bad-4-U treatments. But he won't suffer any longer.

In the meantime, another patient has come to you with the same progressive disease. This patient has followed your prescription for L-Berty in the appropriate dose. The patient has had some adjustment issues, but his disease has stopped progressing and has in fact begun to heal.

Dr. N. Cre-Mentlist stands in the corner scratching his head. He insists it was just a fluke. Dr. N. Slaver still calls it quackery and accuses you of being a "witch doctor."

Thanks again, Neil.

Al Newberry
al.newberry -+AT+- gmail -+DOT+- com


The video effectively evokes Book of Revelation / Book of Daniel fears, and also reminds those of us just a little too experienced (old) of the overblown "savior" mentality surrounding this inexperienced socialist. Very well done, though doubtlessly a little too subtle in this Age of Idiocy.

I cannot vote for a single candidate this election, for any office. The Republicans nominated the Ghost of Nelson Rockefeller crossed with Douglas MacArthur with the spending habits of George W. Bush. The Democrats nominated a cross between Urkel and Alfred E. Neumann with the gun record of Diane Feinstein and Ted Kennedy. The Libertarians nominated a former Drug War enthusiast and Beltway Insider with all the standards of Richard Nixon. The Socialists nominated a socialist woman that was NOT Hilary Clinton.

I am writing in Ron Paul, but why bother? If they don't count the votes honestly, does the charade matter any longer?

Alan R. Weiss, CEO
Synchromesh Computing, LLC
arweiss -+AT+- synchromeshcomputing -+DOT+- com or aweiss -+AT+- austin.rr -+DOT+- com

Hello Ken,

Re: Neil's "Letters We Get, Already. I had written earlier why I was somewhat uninterested in what the Justices (now there's a misnomer) would come up with, in the Heller case. The outcome really doesn't matter much to people who understand where the right comes from.

However we did discuss it a bit on the Free State Wyoming forum; and I wondered there, what language the Founders would have had to put into the 2nd Amendment, for today's Justices to read it as an absolute right? Perhaps this: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. And we really, really mean it!" Is that what it would take? I too am amazed how they can read black and white, and call it grey.

BTW, I can never understand the need to run down the 9mm. Sure, in FMJ it is not impressive, but who uses FMJ when premium HP is avaliable? The day will come when we are not just dealing with punks who want to rob us and who are deterred by just seeing a .38 revolver "brandished". In an actual battle, lots of cartridges (properly loaded) have some value. I say, to each his own.

Paul Bonneau
1.paulbx1 -+AT+- dfgh -+DOT+- net

This magazine is a tremendous service which I recommend to every person I speak to. Thank you for providing it for us.

John Higgins
jgdhiggins -+AT+- yahoo -+DOT+- com

[Thank you, John! Always good to hear an encouraging word—Editor]

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

to advance to the next article
  Table of Contents
to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 480, August 10, 2008

Big Head Press