Big Head Press


L. Neil Smith's
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 702, December 23, 2012

We already had that conversation.
They Demand and Expect Abject Submission.
No.


Previous Previous Table of Contents Contents Next Next

Letters to the Editor

Bookmark and Share

Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.org
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publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication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!]


The War Against Armed Crime

If you need verbal evidence that easy access to firearms does not lead to armed crime and may help reduce it:

Ciudad Juarez, Mexico experienced a murder rate averaging eight a day during calendar year 2010, mostly carried out with illegally obtained Kalashnikovs ("AK-47's") and AR15's in both semi-automatic and full auto form. The city of El Paso, Texas experienced a murder rate of five people the same year, only two of which were with guns. Juarez numbers some two millions souls, El Paso, 720,000. Firearms are easily obtained legally in El Paso, it takes about twenty minutes to fill out the necessary paper work and go through the background check. Firearms are all but impossible to obtain in Juarez

Washington DC, which has a population of 600,000 is pleased that it may actually be able to bring its murder rate down to 100 a year for 2012. El Paso is decrying that our murder rate may reach 25 for the same year. I understand that Washington DC has stricter gun laws than Texas.

Last but not least, at most 40% of El Paso's murders are with guns. blunt objects, knives, and even fists are preferred. This in spite of easily available firearms.

It isn't the guns, it's who is holding them that matters.

A. X. Perez
perez180ehs@hotmail.com

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type


I just had to tell you what I just saw on Facebook.

One of my friends (a real-life friend, by the way) "shared" a picture that showed Jesus sitting in a school classroom with a teacher and surrounded by little children. The accompanying poem was in the meter of "A Visit From St. Nicholas" and told of happy children entering heaven on the morning of Friday, December 14, 2012, and being excited that they were getting to spend Christmas in "God's house". Jesus tells them he will take care of their parents.

When I saw that picture and poem I felt like I had been punched in the stomach. I quite literally choked and had to struggle to hold back tears.

I commented that the posting actually offended me, and that I couldn't agree with trying to put a happy face on mass murder.

The person quickly removed the post and wrote me that they hadn't thought of it that way, but had to agree.

Such is the blindness of those whose minds have been poisoned by religion.

Someone else had earlier posted a video by Mike Huckabee where he blames school massacres on removing god and prayer from society, and government schools in particular. I commented "Yeah, because things like this NEVER happen in churches... oh, wait..." The person responded with "I'm not getting into a fight, because Jesus already won it." Made me want to puke.

It's been a rough few days for those of us who are rational and empathetic.

Kent McManigal
dullhawk@hotmail.com
Blog.KentForLiberty.com

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type


I'm going to agree with President Obama

The President said, in his speech: "Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?"

And I would say that it's not. Children are more precious than freedom.

The President also said: "If there's even one step we can take to save another child or another parent or another town from the grief that's visited Tucson and Aurora and Oak Creek and Newtown and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that, then surely we have an obligation to try."

And I would agree. We have an obligation to take that step needed to keep our children safe.

There really is no choice, and the cost in freedom is one that the losers are just going to have to bear, for the children.

No longer should teachers be allowed to be in school fat, dumb, happy, and lacking responsibility. They are going to have to give up their freedom to be unarmed and going to have to start carrying firearms to protect their charges. Openly.

I realize this may work a hardship on some of them, but, as the president said, it's one step we can take and the price, in freedom, is not too high.

Thomas Creasing
lawhobbit@charter.net

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type


Definition of Terms

On Monday 17 December, 2012 the anchor person on ABC News stated that we needed to debate a solution to the problem of gun violence. In that one simple statement the solution was dictated. Without guns there can be no gun violence. There can be knife violence, club violence, and fist violence. There can be violence caused by bigotry, violence during robbery and rape, political violence, and good old fashioned random violence. Just no gun violence.

The solution to gun violence is to get rid of guns. Don't teach people not to hate, not to rape, not to steal, definitely don't teach them how to defend themselves from bigots, bullies, robbers, and rapists. Just take away the guns. Whatever else happens, it isn't gun violence.

During the election President Obama and his surrogates argued that the rich were not paying their fair share of taxes. How much of the legalized protection money paid to keep this country running the rich paid didn't matter. It wasn't enough, it wasn't their fair share.

The left has decided. Gun owners must be disarmed, the rich must pay higher taxes, and according to a man whose voice and acting skills I admire and whose politics I despise, those who disagree must be jailed as obstructionists, after all they are defying the will of "the Majority." Never mind this is not a crime, it is now defined as such.

As long as the eleutherophobes define the terms of the debate we can't win, this is excluded from possible outcomes. We need a new debate, one with neutral terms. Otherwise we are just wasting breathe, ink, and electrons.

A. X. Perez
perez180ehs@hotmail.com

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type


"The right of the People to keep and beat Arms shall not be infringed."

MAKE OBAMA'S YOUTUBE VIDEO
THE MOST DISLIKED EVER

12:00am in EST Monday, December 31, 2012

For details: https://www.facebook.com/events/460872663976380/

L. Neil Smith
lneil@netzero.com

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type


I noticed Diane Feinstein is proposing a gun ban that would make me an outlaw, President Obama appears to like this bill.

The last guy who outlawed me is now in Federal prison. Go ahead, risk the jinx....

A. X. Perez
perez180ehs@hotmail.com

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type


Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type


Big Head Press