July 2001 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: Mr. Wienke, help me out on this -- Re: FW: General Ashcroft m ake his move
by Jonathan Wienke 31 Jul '01

31 Jul '01

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I don't have the magazine in front of me, but if you'd like, I could scan the page and send you a JPEG or something like that of it. I don't think the NRA is as good a defender of the Second Amendment as it could be, and ditto with John Ashcroft, but at least they aren't trying to totally nuke our freedoms like Clinton, Janet Reno & Handgun Control Incorporated. Jonathan Wienke - -----Original Message----- From: Richard Stevens [mailto:dial911book@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 7:51 AM To: Jonathan Wienke; freematt(a)coil.com Cc: George(a)Orwellian.Org; cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net; Director(a)KeepAndBearArms.com; air.man(a)att.net; brian(a)citizensofamerica.org Subject: Mr. Wienke, help me out on this -- Re: FW: General Ashcroft make his move - --- Jonathan Wienke <JonathanW(a)gbgcorp.com> wrote: > > I get the NRA's American Rifleman magazine. The July > issue also has > an article about Ashcroft's letter, which does not > quote the rather > lengthy footnote. However, it does contain a legible > image of BOTH > pages of the letter, including the ENTIRE text of > the footnote. This > is hardly the action of an organization bent on > distorting Ashcroft's > view on the Second Amendment. Stupid editing on the > part of the > America's First Freedom team, perhaps, but not an > organization-wide > conspiracy. > > Jonathan Wienke > Mr. Wienke, I paged through the entire July 2001 issue of American Rifleman, and maybe I'm just blind as the proverbial bat, but I don't see the article to which you refer that quotes the entire Ashcroft letter. On what page is it? The July 2001 issue of First Freedom is the one featuring the Ashcroft letter -- that I have received thus far. On the point you raise: maybe it was merely a bad editorial decision for the one magazine. Fine, and we can forgive that. But, ask this question: in what kind of workplace environment could this kind of editing decision be made? Remember that more than one editor had to approve the final copy. This is not just a typo. More than one person had to consciously decide to omit relevant material without telling the reader. I have to wonder if other sorts of "editing decisions" that massage the facts and distort the truth are being made ... and we readers don't know it. Maybe it was entirely innocent. Then NRA should promptly apologize, correct it and publish the full text in the following issue. Let's see if they do. - --Richard Stevens __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBO2YCRxj6oMyeDxZoEQIcBgCfd2QPu23wfwj56en49EF9Aoou6OsAoJdJ PLKWKsFtG76jnEqK2G6sGBZA =xyd4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: NRA Prints HALF Of The Story (Barniskis)?
by Neal J. Lang 30 Jul '01

30 Jul '01

E-mail From the Desk of Neal Lang Hi, Pete, I was forwarded your e-mail on the above subject by Pete Mancus. As I was not an original recipient, I hope you don't consider my response impertinent. I read with interest (and sadness) your July 27th letter satirically belittling the National Rifle Association for celebrating arguably the "most important" political coup on behalf of the "individual right to keep and bear arms" in the last 8 years. I hope you don't find my corrective reply to be a flame, as I do not intend it to be taken as such. I respect you and your efforts on behalf of "the cause" too much. This current epistle, while I believe errant, evidences the "passions" and "wit" that make all your correspondence a "joy" for those "true believers" who clearly see the "truth and the light". However, the underlying concept that the NRA is "counter-productive" (and thereby, by implication, undeserving of our support) is wrong. I'll tell you why. First, your position (along with others) seems to suggest that the battle to restore our "unalienable rights" can be won without compromise. This position suggests that our Federal government and its Constitution were founded on "principles" that could never be compromised. Obviously, Dave, history tells a different story. After all, our founders, after engaging in a desperate struggle with the most powerful empire on earth over "principles" eloquently expressed in the "Declaration of Independence" instituted a government by ratifying a Constitution that codifies a "compromise" allowing slavery. A Nation born on the idea that "all men our created equal" allowed a government based on the "constitutional principle" that certain "man" count only a as "3/5th persons" and "untaxed" Native Americans don't count at all. Compared to the founders' "constitutional compromise" on "slavery", the NRA's giving ground on "Brady" in order to demand an "Insta-Check" and a "ban" on the government retaining records of purchasers is really quite minor. Interestingly, by including these provisions in "Brady", we have today a situation whereby America's chief lawman, General Ashcroft, can insist that records illegally retained by the FBI for 180 (or more) days, must be destroyed with 24 hours under the "rule of law". I see this as a "glass half-full", Dave, not "half-empty". If the NRA did not have a place at the table to get demand this compromise, we would today be "truly" experiencing "totally unacceptable delays" in firearms purchases, along with a "permanent registry" of firearms buyers. To think that "Brady" would not have passed, despite NRA opposition, without these important compromises is quite delusional, IMMHO. The assault on Attorney General Ashcroft by "Constitutional zealots" is also quite delusional as well, IMMHO. To say that one believes in the "infallibility" of the U.S. Constitution and therefore I condemn the Nation's highest law enforcement officer for saying that he will serve his constitutional role by enforcing the law, is really quite illogical. If you understand the Constitution, you will see that it did nothing more the "institute a government". The form of government instituted was a "republic", a where everyone, "the People" as well as the "magistrates" must obey the law. Our constitution established three distinct branches, each with different authority and responsibility. Article. I. Section. 1. - "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Article. II. Section. 3. - "(H)e (the President) shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..." Article III. Section. 1. - "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Article III. Section. 2. - "(T)he supreme Court shall have appellate Jur isdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." The Executive branch, of which General Ashcroft is a member, must "faithfully execute" the laws that are passed by the Legislative Branch and adjudicated by Judicial branch. When one of President Clinton's "White House Counsels" gleefully exclaimed, "Stroke of the pen, force of law, NEAT!" - we, the believers of Constitutional law, were justifiably horrified. Why than are we so quick to object to the Attorney General when he states the obvious. He MUST uphold the law. He cannot on his own usurp the authority of either the Congress or the Courts. In this he is living his oath of office and serving as an example of the kind of "true Original Intent" that has not been seen in Washington in at least 12 years, if not longer. The fact that he bravely committed his Department to the "true" meaning of the 2nd Amendment as an "individual right" should be the cause of great celebrations throughout our country by those of us who believe that "the People" in fact means individuals. Instead we "parse" his words and de-ride him for keeping his oath of office by "faithfully executing" the Federal code he inherited. Shooting organizations should be today renaming "Practical Shooting Matches" after this courageous American and hero of the 2nd Amendment. Dave, the undermining of our rights begins when governmental officials forget we have a government of laws. Our founders thought that Congress, not the Attorney General should make the laws of our country. General Ashcroft agrees. Historically, the Courts determine the Constitutionality our laws, not the Attorney General. General Ashcroft agrees. I think you should celebrate this victory, not commiserate when a public official recognizes it. I am glade you still retain your "life membership" in the NRA. However, as a member, I am not sure you can see how this GREAT organization fits in the scheme of the defense of our "unalienable rights" in the reality of 21st America. Personally, I believe neither the NRA, the Constitution, POTUS, the Attorney General, Congress, nor the Supreme Court have any bearing on the actual existence of any my "unalienable rights". I sleep peacefully every night in the knowledge that while my government may have the "power" to kill me, it does not have the "authority" to "separate me from these rights". In fact, I, myself, cannot even "give away" these "unalienable rights" if I wanted to - else they would not be "unalienable". The struggle to insure these rights "politically" in the "good old" U.S. of A. must be fought on at least three fronts. These fronts are: 1. The Judicial - overturning existing "bad laws" in the Courts. This requires the nomination of good judges that understand the meaning of republic and the simple plan English of the U.S. Constitution. 2. The Legislative - passing new laws that correct existing "bad laws" and promote expansion of our 2nd Amendment rights to the States and local governments. This would be similar to the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960. This requires electing good Representatives that understand the Constitutional limits imposed on Congress. 3. The Promotional - to insure the appropriate "public relations" climate to insure items 1. and 2. This involves also election the "right" public officials to nominate the "right" kind of Justices and to pass the "right" kind of legislation. I submit, Dave, that the NRA is carrying the battle on these three most effectively. After all, being rated the "Most Influential" lobby in Washington indicates to me that the NRA is nothing if it is not effective. To fault the NRA in the absence of a more effective means of defending our rights is quite easy. If you analyze the "political" battlefield were meaning and effect of the 2nd Amendment as it stands today is being determined, you will find that: 1. Congress, as a whole, does not see the 2nd Amendment as do you or I, or the GOA, JPFO, COA, or the NRA, for that matter. For this reason the NRA legislative strategy since 1968 has been a "rear guard" action. Through "political compromise" they attempted (and for the most part succeeded) to blunt the more onerous Federal and State laws invading our 2nd Amendment rights. 2. The Courts, in general, and the U.S. Supreme Court, in particular, do not see the 2nd Amendment as do you or I, or the GOA, JPFO, COA, or the NRA, for that matter. Through lifetime, "good Behaviour" tenure, most judges are "immune" to "politics". However, before their confirmations, the NRA can and does have some influence in the selection, nomination and confirmation of these Judges. Additionally, in very well prepared and persuasive "Amicus Briefs", the NRA helps promote an "unalienable, individual" 2nd Amendment Right in the courts. In fact, a fair reading of their Amicus Curiae in Emerson would indicate that NRA position on Lautenberg parallels mine (and maybe yours?) - (it can be read at: http://www.saf.org/NRAbrief.htm ) - despite how you have painted it in your letter. 3. The public at large ("the People" of the Constitution) generally does not see the 2nd Amendment the same as you or I, or the GOA, JPFO, COA, or the NRA, for that matter. This is our "PR gap". I think the NRA has been most effective on this front in the "battle", as well. While accepting their inevitable defeat in Congressional on the "Assault Weapons Ban", in 1994 the NRA came back with a "vengeance" that helped account for one of the most historic political "turnarounds" in U.S. history, giving control of Congress to the more "2nd Amendment friendly" Republicans. This caused our "true" enemies to institute those IRS audits about which you write in revenge for NRA part in their worse 20th Century political loss. Do I wish we lived in a utopia where all gun owners truly understood their rights and voted? You bet. But the sad truth is, Dave, many gun owners haven't a clue, and many of those that do, don't bother to vote. This is the "real world" in which the NRA is attempting to "hold the line". Do they make mistakes? Of course they do. But on balance, IMMHO, without NRA we would be today looking at British-like total bans on all firearms. If you are fair, I think you will agree. While we need to help this organization to "stay on the mark", we also must recognize their tremendous contribution. As such we must be careful not to destroy this truly effective and necessary organization, as we attempt to promote the "true" meaning of "unalienable rights". I fear, my friend, that sometimes passionate words, even amongst friends and "true believers", can also be damaging and counter-productive. One reason, Dave, I enjoy so much your "in your face" correspondence directed at the real "forces of evil" is the passion you display in "fighting the good fight". I love the way you verbally "hold them by their nose while you kick their ass". However, that said, I also think when addressing the "choir", some check on passion in the direction of presenting the "all the facts" might be the "order of the day". While "tearing down" is sometimes necessary in order to "build-up", care must be used when instructing on "enemy recognition". A fair reading of this latest epistle of yours has the NRA as the "enemy". IMMHO, Dave, they are not. If enough of NRA members that truly respect you take you at your word, serious damage will be done to the NRA and also to our "right to keep and bear arms". If that happens, the opportunity to re-take our "rights" on the three fronts of the Legislative; the Judiciary and the Public Opinion will be lost leaving only one "Civil War" as the only available option. I don't think I need to remind you, my friend, that the last "Civil War", killed more Americans that all the conflicts we were involved in - combined. Remember, Dave, when it comes to "2nd Amendment rights", we will, in fact, "all hang separately, if we can't hang together". Keep the Faith, Neal Neal J. Lang (Signed) E-mail: movwater(a)bellsouth.net

3 2

Re: NRA Prints HALF Of The Story (Barniskis)?
by Neal J. Lang 30 Jul '01

30 Jul '01

E-mail From the Desk of Neal Lang Hi, Dave, Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful reply. Sorry about the salutation mix-up. NRA Candidate Ratings: Rep. Ron Paul: Aside from reiterating that politics is based on the art of compromise, let me state that I was unaware of Congressman Ron Paul's (whom I consider a giant in the area of all rights, not just the 2A) NRA "B" rating. I will of course query the NRA (as I do whenever I learn of such inconsistencies). Not wishing to be seen as an apologist, I suppose they might suggest that Rep. Paul's opposition to a NRA supported Bill earned him such a grade. After all, it is the NRA's rating system, so I suppose they can provide the criteria. Again, being unaware of the particulars (what Bill did Rep. Paul oppose? why? and why it was so important to the NRA?) would help my evaluation of this specific situation. On its face, let me express my disappointment (might I say sadness) in the NRA's chevalier treatment of someone I consider a hero. Rep. Mary Bono: In the Rep. Mary Bono rating, maybe I would chalk that one up to wishful thinking. I believe her vote was reliable in Congress. So, while perfection is reserved only for God and his Son, I might not be too worried about this particular rating. Senate Trent Lott: Here we agree, as I have long advocated the Senator from Mississippi be replace as GOP Senate Leader with the senior Senator from Texas. I personally blame Senator Lott for the loss of Republican control of the Senate. Not because he didn't "kiss Senator Jeffords' butt", but because he did. A stronger performance on his part in leadership from 1996 - 2000 would have left less Republican carcasses on the ground after the last election, IMMHO. That said, you don't get to be the "Most Influential Lobby in Washington" without "kissing some butt". I guess a case could be made that the Majority Leader of the Senate is as good as any, if you really must "kiss butt". Now, on balance, my friend, "like making sausage", effective politics "ain't very pretty". I concede that sometimes the NRA "ratings scope" might beg for some "fine tuning". However, to "rate" the NRA as the moral equivalent to HCI, BCPGV, or whatever "alphabet soup" the "forces of evil" have most recently metastasized into, really ventures way beyond "hyperbole", IMMHO. IN RE Mr. Ashcroft: I agree that you did not mention Mr. Ashcroft, while your "rant" (your word not mine - I prefer "passioned appeal") was at the end of a chain of e-mails that did (see cc:'s to my e-mail). I, myself, do not know why the Editors at the NRA decided to leave out General Ashcroft's footnotes when they published his GREAT letter. I concur it would have been much better to include said footnotes. However, while you attribute this (oversight?) to some "dastardly plot" or "total incompetence", I am a little more charitable. Maybe the journalists at the NRA thought including that the "Attorney General commits to uphold the law" was a little like publishing a story about a "dog biting a man". I note that you loving cite "Marbury v. Madison" as establishing the supremacy of the Fed Law over all else (by the way, did you know some observers reference this case as the beginning of the "slippery slope" we are rapidly descending today). Interestingly the phraseology "compelling state interest" comes from a long line of Supreme Court cases (mostly on free speech). So the accusation against General Ashcroft seems to be that he is somehow violating Marbury vs. Madison by adhering to say Victoria Buckley, Secretary of State of Colorado v. American Constitution Law Foundation, Inc., et al. (1999). This "free political speech" case turns on "compelling state interest". Justice Clarence Thomas' concurring opinion uses that exact phraseology in its opening paragraph: Justice Thomas , concurring in the judgment. When considering the constitutionality of a state election regulation that restricts core political speech or imposes "severe burdens" on speech or association, we have generally required that the law be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. But if the law imposes "lesser burdens," we have said that the State's important regulatory interests are generally sufficient to justify reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions. The Court today appears to depart from this now-settled approach. In my view, Colorado's badge, registration, and reporting requirements each must be evaluated under strict scrutiny. Judged by that exacting standard, I agree with the majority that each of the challenged regulations violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and accordingly concur only in the judgment. (See the complete opinion at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&c ase=/us/000/97%2D930.html ) I suppose in your U.S. of A. the Executive Branch officer, in this case the A.G. makes the call on Constitutionality despite opinions from the Supremes right on point. I think that would violate the "Original Intent" big time, IMMHO. I (politely) suggest that you re-read Articles I through III and see exactly what General Ashcroft took an oath to defend and preserve. I think Karl Marx envisioned that wonderful utopia where everyone makes his own laws. I believe they call it anarchy. Going back to the basics, Dave, we must first understand why "men institute governments". According to the "Declaration of Independence" it is to "secure these Rights". What rights? The "Natural Rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". That is the only reason for governments to exist (at least according to our founders). Soooo! The only acceptable "compelling state interest" must be related to securing these "Natural Rights". Nothing else can be "compelling", IMMHO. IMMHO, both Justice Thomas and General Ashcroft feel the same. Would a future Supreme Court Associate Justice Ashcroft have adjudicated a future Miller v. U.S. differently than the 1939 Supremes? I truly believe he would. Will we ever get to find out? No, that letter causing all the "weeping and gnashing of teeth" he wrote and shared with World probably ended any chance for his nomination to the bench, much less his confirmation. Can you say BORKING! What's more, I believe he knew it, but wrote the letter anyway, because it was the RIGHT THING TO DO. That is courage, IMMHO. Something we should be celebrating, not disparaging. IN RE NRA practices and tactics: Organizational politics are the pits, I agree. When (way back in '06) I was State VP for the NJ Jaycees, I had a losing battle with one of my best friend (at the time President of my local Jaycees Chapter) over the State Presidential candidate to support. He ended up having our Chapter support the WRONG (IMMHO) candidate, who lost, and thereby reduced the effectiveness of our Chapter in Jaycee State politics. He promised to, and then reneged on, allowing me to address the Chapter's delegates before making the final decision on which candidate to support. I haven't spoken to him since. But as Chapter President he had the "power" to call the shots. One of the reasons that the NRA is an effective organization, is because they know how to play "hardball politics". Just ask Bill Clinton and Al Gore. While it would be nice if "Robert's Rules of Order" applied to organizational "power" (control) politics, the fact is that they don't. "Can't all we just get along?" IN RE gun laws that have been passed on the "winning team's" watch: Dave, the worst "Gun Law" passed in the 20th Century was the "Gun Control Act of 1968". That passed in the form that it did because the NRA at the time (I was a member because I liked their magazine) was asleep. After that wakeup call they have been pretty much on top of the game. They know how to count votes as well (maybe better) than any party's "floor whip". They know when to fight, and they know when to negotiate a "better deal". "Galvanizing the gun owners" can be done, but I submit that it is BEST DONE BY THE NRA, IMMHO. For example please see the 1994 Election. Now if you are fair, Dave, you will agree that as far getting "gun owners" to the polls, the NRA is the real 800 lb. gorilla. Getting the 80 million or so "gun owners" seems to be a real challenge. After 8 years of the President, the AG (General Janet "Judge Dredd - I am da law" Reno) and their cast of thousands crapping all over the 2nd Amendment, I submit that in 2000 "gun-owner voter turn-out" was quite "under-whelming". Possibly a large number of them voted for Gore figuring he was just a "good ole boy from Tennessee. IN RE "Project Exile": I have yet to see any NRA article, infomercial, advertisement, position paper or statement stating that "Project Exile" should "target" Lautenberg-type "firearms regulation violators". If you know of any, please provide them to me. When I queried the NRA on that very subject they stated that they believe that the purpose of "Project Exile" is to crack-down on felons illegally possessing "firearms". I agree. If there are felons working my neighborhood, illegally carrying a firearm, I would prefer them put-away, thank you very much. Does the State have "compelling interest" in do just that? IMMHO, YES. After all the first "Natural Right" that government is "instituted to secure" is the "Right to Life". If Mr. Felon is plying his "B & E" trade in my neighborhood "packing heat", I would be most appreciative of "Boca's finest" taking him "off the street" (on a gun violation) before he is surprised by my wife returning from the mall unexpectedly, and he shoots her to death. I have no problem with that type of "Project Exile", Dave. If you do, I guess we agree to disagree. According to everything I have read about the NRA's position that is exactly the way they see "Project Exile" working. CRIMINAL, not CITIZEN DISARMAMENT, Dave. An indication that this tact on the NRA's part has been effective is the change seen in the opposition. It's hard to find today calls for more "gun regulation" based on criminal miss-use from the anti-rights folks. The new manta is "Firearms Safety". Why? Because the NRA has been so effective in undermining the illogic of new gun control legislation based on "criminal use" when current "criminal gun laws" on the books are not being enforced. Americans can be quite logical sometimes, as polls on this very issue have shown. Quite a clever and effective ploy on the part of the NRA, IMMHO. As for Ruby Ridge and Waco, I believe that both cases centered on the "Firearms Act of 1934". Pretty much a "tax evasion case". The only case on the Act to reach the Supremes was Miller v. U.S. The court did not exactly find the 1934 Act Constitutional, merely opining that the Feds could tax firearms of "no militia value" (in Miller's case a short-barreled shotgun). I wonder how the decision would come out had Miller been caught with a Thompson? Hmmm! Of course that is the very thing Randy Weaver was indicted for - possession of an Untaxed (and Registered) short-barreled shotgun. The Branch Davidians case may have also involved the 1980's ban on new "fully auto weapons", however, even though I believe they had a Class 3 firearms dealer license. Personally, I think in both cases the government was trying to "take out" the suspects in order to avoid a possible challenge before the Supremes of these laws. Allowing that the Miller Court never even looked at exactly where, under "Commerce Cause", the "Firearms Act of 1934" might fit, I would love to see the current Supremes take a case on this federal law. Justice Thomas' opinion (either for the majority, in dissent or in concurrence) should be priceless, IMMHO. IN RE your premise on pragmatism and compromise: Dave, it real tough to talk about rebellion, when we can't even get our "forces" to polls. Lets look at both "slavery" and the "right to keep and bear arms". One reason the 2nd Amendment was proposed and finally accepted to the Constitution is the concept that "you cannot make slaves of armed men". This concept goes back at least to Aristotle and possibly further. How does one justify a "unalienable right to keep and bear arms" for all men, based in part as a bulwark against "slavery", being included in a document that institutes a government that condones that very institution? If anyone can answer that question for me, I would sincerely appreciate it. The fact is, Dave, whether I would ask them or not, both Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams (as well as Tom Jefferson, and James Madison, and George Washington, and John Adams, et. al.) did compromise. The "Declaration of Independence" was a compromise (Tom Jefferson wanted an anti-slavery statement but didn't get it from the Continental Congress). The Constitution of the United States was a compromise. (Read the Debates of the Federal Convention at: http://www.constitution.org/dfc/dfc_0000.htm - to see how much a compromise.) The "Bill of Rights" was a compromise. James Madison didn't want them added to his Constitution, even after he proposed them. (See Madison Proposal to Congress for a Bill of Rights at: http://www.jmu.edu/madison/madprobll.htm# - to see how much its author compromised.) I, too, consider myself a "purest" when comes to both "fly-fishing" (dry flies only, if the trout wont take dries - screw them) and "Natural Rights". While governments are (should be) instituted only for the purpose of "securing the People's Natural Rights" they seldom, if ever, met this goal. "Natural Rights" are not capable of being compromised, IMMHO. Why? "Unalienable" means that even you cannot give-up your "right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". How then can you compromise an absolute? It would be like compromising on "gravity". You or I just can't. Where the compromise comes into play is in politics. If the founders did not want politics (and compromise) to be part of the equation, the Constitution would have instituted a government based on a King or dictator, rather than giving all the power to the most political body - the legislature. The question is where to draw the line. Apparently the founders decided that the line could be drawn on the other side of slavery, because that is what they did. This then begs the question, if the "institution" (slavery) can be compromised on, why can't the defenses against "slavery" - such as the "right to keep and bear arms"? Again, we are confronted with a conundrum. It is a political conundrum from a political document, the U.S. Constitution. Being an absolutist on "Natural Rights" (as found in the "Declaration of Independence") helps. But don't look for your "rock" in the "Constitution". It ain't there in that "political" document. That is why I have always contended that our "right to keep and bear arms" cannot solely rely on the "Parchment Defence" of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. IMMHO, our strongest defence is in the words of Jefferson, not Madison. We need to use our "Natural Rights" as the reason we must enjoy the "right to keep and bear arms". As for "Civil Disobedience", the essence of which is, as both Gandhi and King would tell you, if you are prepared to be jailed for your beliefs. I suppose I am. I haven't been confronted with the opportunity, so I do not know how I would react. It's "seeing the elephant". I haven't seen war (civil or otherwise) so I really don't know how I would react when the bullets are flying, shells are bursting, and my friends are dying around me. I like to think I would be brave, a hero even - but, in truth, I just don't know. I concur (wholeheartedly) about continuing to work within the system. After all, one of the "biggies" for the founders was "taxation without representation". So far we can still vote for those guys that tax us beyond the "Medieval Serfs". IMMHO, the "showdown" if (or when) it comes will not be over the "right to keep and bear arms" but over some other item (items) of individual rights. You will note that none of the items included in King George's indictment in the "Declaration of Independence" includes "citizen disarmament" (although we know such took place). The real challenge for us "gun nuts" is to insure that sufficiently numerous armed citizens exist if (when) the "scat hits the bladed cooling device". As for Chuck Heston's (Moses?) gesture with a "musket", obviously it was symbolic. Is he a true hero? I think so. His ideas and mine are pretty close, at least based on his speeches and his book (I have an autographed copy - To: "Smokewagon" From: "Chuck Heston"). I think he believes in freedom, Dave, no matter what he thinks about the AK47. I believe many "pro-rights" people have attacked him unfairly. It took real courage, IMMHO, for someone from Hollywood to get so involved in 2nd Amendment rights. I think he did "the cause" a whole lot of good. I say, "God bless him." Would he "go to the mattresses" if the need arose? I really think he would. He was, after all, already arrested for "civil disobedience" during "civil rights marches" in the 1960's. As for "civil disobedience" regarding California's "assault weapon" ban, I suggest you use the General Ashcroft test for the Constitutionality of "Gun Control Laws". That is does the State of California have a "compelling interest" in banning certain semi-automatic and ugly (in the eyes of the beholder) firearms. Unless the Government of the State of California (Republic of California actually - see the U.S. Constitution) can show where such a ban helps "secure the People's Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", such a law could be and should be the cause of "Civil Disobedience". Go ahead, Dave, "Dump the tea in the harbor". But be prepared, as the "Sons of Liberty" were, to "pay the piper". Remember, however, Dave, based on the Constitution and Jurisprudence starting even before Marbury v. Madison, that only what the Supremes deem as unconstitutional is unconstitutional. Remember, also, that the Supremes believe that privacy (arguably a civil right) trumps "Life" which is a "Natural Right", at least according to the "Declaration of Independence". I would not be surprised that the Supremes might find that the State (especially Style-conscious California) would have a "state compelling interest" in banning "ugly firearms". After all, they clash with so much of the really hip beachwear don't they? While I really feel sorry for you guys in the "Republic (Peoples?) of California", I note that in the 2000 Election cycle "the People" (sheeple) of California decided (overwhelmingly) instead for throwing "the Oppressors" out - they would make rather us all suffer their same fate. Hardly encouraging when you are planning a political turn-around, much less a successful rebellion, IMMHO. Dave, while I am "four square" by your side in the idea that some "politicians" (oppressors) probably should be tried (due process by all means) and then executed, I am merely trying to raise the fact that "circular firing squad formations" may be hazardous to your health. Please stay the course, my friend. I will continue to read with much pleasure (and usually much amusement) your excellent verbal rockets. Keep the Faith, Neal Neal J. Lang (Signed) E-mail: movwater(a)bellsouth.net

2 1

** Breaking News ** Aqua Vie Ships to Albertson's
by Stocknight ListServer 30 Jul '01

30 Jul '01

[Stockupticks.com] [Image] [Image] Welcome to Stockupticks.com Newsletter Issue 10 - July 30, 2001 [Image] [Image][Image] [Image] e-Blast [Image] *** Breaking News Breaking News *** [Image] In response to investors requesting that more of our coverage come after the market closes, we are providing this Breaking News, which gives our members maximum time to review this company and respond. Stockupticks endeavors to bring you information about under-followed companies that may be of particular interest to investors in "discovery" and emerging growth stocks. Aqua Vie (OTC BB: AVBC) has been steadily gaining ground in the distribution of its product lines. The company is well on its way to becoming a major competitor in the bottled water market. We believe the following news release from today will be of significant interest to investors. [Image] [Image] [Image] Aqua Vie "Winner" The American Tasting Institute's Award of Excellence [Image] AQUA VIE (Nasdaq: AVBC) [Image] Aqua Vie Hydrators(TM) Shipments to Additional Albertson's Stores Underway -Having Received Additional Authorizations for Product Placement, Company will Continue to Build Western Region Presence- KETCHUM, Idaho, July 30 /PRNewswire/ -- Aqua Vie Beverage Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: AVBC) announced today that shipments of the company's all-natural Hydrator(TM) line of beverages continues to Northern California and Arizona Albertson's stores. Recent shipments will bring the total number of Albertson's stores stocking Aqua Vie to over 600 stores throughout northern and southern California, Nevada, and Arizona. Additionally, during the past week, Aqua Vie Hydrators were shipped to over 130 Raley's Supermarkets and Drug Centers, Bel Air Markets, Nob Hill Foods and Food Source warehouse stores throughout California, as well as 90 Save-Mart stores, with product availability expected within the next ten days. "Throughout the past several weeks, the company has continued to receive authorizations for placement of product from key retail chains. We look forward to expanding our presence considerably in the western region during August and September," said Gillespie. Aqua Vie Beverage Corporation develops and markets all-natural, lightly flavored, still (non-carbonated) bottled spring water. The company's low-calorie alternative beverages are bacteria-free and contain no preservatives. Aqua Vie produces and markets the Hydrator(TM) line of beverages in the United States and Europe. This beverage line, comprised of seven low-calorie, all-natural beverages that are lightly flavored and packaged in half-liter bottles, is designed to increase one's personal consumption of water, naturally. The underlying technology also serves as the delivery system for Aqua Vie's new line of children's Hydrators(TM), PurePlay(TM), and Eau Vin(TM), Aqua Vie's line of nonalcoholic wine and champagnes made from spring water. For further information about Aqua Vie Beverage Corporation, visit the company's web site at http://www.aquavie.com. NOTE: Statements contained in this news release that are not strictly historical are forward-looking within the meaning of the safe harbor clause of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The company makes these statements based on information available to it as of the date of this news release and it assumes no responsibility to update or revise such forward-looking statements. Editors and investors are cautioned that such forward-looking statements invoke risk and uncertainties that may cause the company's actual results to differ materially from such forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, demand for the company's product both domestically and abroad, the company's ability to continue to develop its market, general economic conditions, and other factors that may be more fully described in the company's literature and any periodic filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. SOURCE: Aqua Vie Beverage Corporation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Recent Price (01-07-30): $0.07 Avg. Closing Price (30 days): $0.11 60 Week High Volume (12-29-00): 2,317,600 60 Week Low Volume (05-31-00): 13,500 [Image] Quarterly Revenues 01/31/01: $647,808 Market Cap (05-17-01) $6,602,299 Shares Outstanding: 47,159,285 Registered Shareholders: 10,000 [Image]Profiles [Image] About Albertson's Founded in 1939, Albertson's (NYSE: ABS) operates a chain of grocery stores in 37 states served by 22 distribution centers strategically located throughout its operating area in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas and Utah. About Aqua Vie Aqua Vie Beverage Corporation develops and markets all-natural, lightly flavored, still (non-carbonated) bottled spring water. The company's low-calorie alternative beverages are bacteria-free and contain no preservatives. Aqua Vie produces and markets the Hydrator(TM) line of beverages in the United States and Europe. This beverage line, comprised of seven low-calorie, all-natural beverages that are lightly flavored and packaged in half-liter bottles, is designed to increase one's personal consumption of water, naturally. The underlying technology also serves as the delivery system for Aqua Vie's new line of children's Hydrators(TM), PurePlay(TM), and Eau Vin(TM), Aqua Vie's line of non-alcoholic wine and champagnes made from spring water. [SunTea Hydrators by case] [SunTea Hydrators by case][SunTea Hydrators by case] [Image]Contact Information [Image] Aqua Vie, Inc. 333 South Main Street Ketchum, Idaho, 83340 Tel: 888-744-7500 Fax: 208-622-8829 [Image]Safe Harbor Statement [Image] Statements regarding financial matters in above referenced press release other than historical facts are ``forward-looking statements'' within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and as that term is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The Company intends that such statements about the Company's future expectations, including future revenues and earnings, anticipated events and all other forward-looking statements, be subject to the safe harbors created thereby. Since these statements (future operational results and sales) involve risks and uncertainties and are subject to change at any time, the Company's actual results may differ materially from expected results. Disclaimer: Stockupticks.com is owned by Market Pathways Financial Relations Incorporated (MP). The information contained herein is based on a news release or other report written and disseminated by the subject company. Any information, opinions or analysis regarding the subject company to which Stockupticks.com has provided a link or other detail are provided by sources believed to be reliable but no representation, expressed or implied, is made as to its accuracy, completeness or correctness. This report is for information purposes only and should not be used as the basis for any investment decision. While MP has not been compensated specifically for producing or disseminating this Newsletter, MP has been retained by Aqua Vie to assist in its on-going investor relations efforts. Aqua Vie has granted MP 1.5 million shares of its restricted common stock as payment for continuing financial public relations services. This compensation constitutes a conflict of interest as to our ability to remain objective in our communication regarding the subject company. Write or call MP for detailed disclosure as required by Rule 17b of the Securities Act of 1933/1934. MP and Stockupticks.com and its owners, agents and employees are not investment advisors and this report is not investment advice. This information is neither a solicitation to buy nor an offer to sell securities. MP and Stockupticks.com and/or its affiliates, associates and employees from time to time may have either a long or short position in securities mentioned. Information contained herein may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the express written consent of Market Pathways Financial Relations Incorporated (Copyright 2001.) [Image][Image] [Image] [Image] © Stockupticks 2001, All rights reserved [Image] --- You are currently subscribed to stocknight as: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-stocknight-163101P(a)lyris.stocknight.com

1 0

Home Typist
by George Papanaoum 30 Jul '01

30 Jul '01

I am interested in your Home Typist Position. I am an Australian resident. I have extensive data entry experience and am proficient on all versions of MS Word, Excel & PowerPoint. My current speed in 12000 ks/hr. Please mail me if you are still seeking employees. Best Regards, Stephanie Papanaoum

1 0

RE: NRA Prints HALF Of The Story (Barniskis)?
by Neal J. Lang 30 Jul '01

30 Jul '01

Hi, Dave, First the disclaimers. #1- I don't know everyone on your list. I went ahead and "replied to all" because I am assuming there is interest, and because it is my shady virtue that is being questioned here...:-) If any of you have no desire to be part of this exchange, please accept my apologies for intruding into your e-lives. Let me know and I will see that you are not included in further discussions. Frankly, neither do I. They were all associated with the e-mails attached to your correspondence that I received from Pete. I cc:'ed Angel just to see if he was awake - he was! I really don't mine letting everyone in on our thoughts, but only if you feel the same. #2- I have added a couple other folks who I think may have an interest in this. Again, if I am being presumptuous, please just send me a "drop dead" flame and throw a brick through my window, and I will leave you off any future exchange. Please do, by all means. IMMHO, the more the merrier. #3- I generally don't have a lot of time for back-and-forth one-on-one debating- I find my time more productively spent on my own agenda items, and what with all the other limitations and demands, I may or may not be able to get back to rebuttals or additional emails from others in a timely or comprehensive manner. I sure don't want to get into an endless exchange over this, as there are so many productive venues. I can readily understand, Dave. It is a petty though, as you debate so well. Please participate (or not) at a pace that makes sense to you. I will always enjoy reading your correspondence, whether directed to me, or to other (more worthy) targets. I am not "blowing smoke", Dave, I do so enjoy your passionate epistles. My response follows. Keep the Faith, Neal ---- Let me begin by saying I do not consider your legitimate concerns to be a flame. I'm a big boy and can take my lumps, and you have been most...ummm...politic in stating your reservations and explaining the reasoning behind them. You have a right to your say. I'm also sorry if I made you "sad." I don't know if it's gonna be productive to take ALL the points of my piece and ALL the points of your reply and interlineate comments and rebuttals. I especially don't think it would be a very interesting read- I think, instead, it would quickly devolve into something fragmented, and very hard to follow. So I'd like to address this in generalities, with the further qualification that I'm not out to try and score points at your expense, or even to convince you that I am right and you are wrong; I can walk away from this knowing that we disagree and still think highly of you. In fact, I have heard the arguments you pose, in one form or another, before, so I don't think my mind is going to change on this- and I cede to you the same. I began talking about NRA ratings. I think it has been pretty well documented that they have on occasion given high ratings to politicians who haven't necessarily earned them in the hope of establishing good will. I have also seen the opposite occur, that is, a 2nd Amendment champion like Ron Paul being downgraded NOT for his stance on 2A purity, but rather because he opposed legislation being promoted by NRA. Surely, Neal, you will not argue that Mary Bono is the equal to Ron Paul in terms of Constitutional fidelity? Pragmatism aside, which rating system do you think best exemplifies original intent: NRA's or GOA's? And would you at least acknowledge describing Trent Lott as "stalwart" on the 2A is, at best, hyperbole? In re Mr. Ashcroft, I believe if you look again, you will see that I did not mention him at all, but rather, composed my rant in response to a thread that did. I think the omission of his qualifying statement in re "compelling state interest" in the official NRA journal has one of two credible explanations: incompetence, or suppression of information. As I don't "know" why it happened, I really cannot speculate further in any fairness. That said, I do stipulate that he is no Janet Reno, and I am encouraged by some of his statements, as well as disappointed by others. You are correct that his proper function is to enforce the law; I would submit that the supreme law of the land is clear, and that precedent established in Marbury v Madison relegates anything in conflict with this null and void. In re NRA practices and tactics, I have never seen a stockholders' report or a proxy ballot where management urged owners to vote AGAINST a slate of candidates. That such ads were paid for by private parties does not diminish the fact that they appeared alongside official ballots. In re gun laws that have been passed on the "winning team's" watch, you may be right that we would have seen much more draconian increments had the NRA monolith not provided a breakwater. Then again, one can only speculate had overreaching socialists tried compressing 25 years of citizen disarmament into a shorter period; perhaps it would have horrified sleeping gun owners and galvanized them into individual, spirited activism, and to organize behind a fiercely uncompromising banner. Perhaps this would have scared our attackers off. But we will never know- all we can see is what has transpired, and I fear the heat has been turned up so slowly that the frog may never escape the pot. In re "Project Exile," I have not seen a substantiated rebuttal to any of the points I made, especially in re the activist I cited urging that they instead adopt "enforce existing violent crime laws". So I'll just ask a simple question or four: Where in the Constitution has the fedgov been delegated the enumerated power to enforce ANY gun laws? Wouldn't the Constitutionally-consistent position be to repeal these laws? Isn't such enforcement precisely what precipitated Waco and Ruby Ridge? And if phrased more precisely, would you and NRA management advocate enforcing existing CITIZEN DISARMAMENT laws? In re your premise on pragmatism and compromise, as you have pointed out, our Constitution was ratified through exactly that means. But the compromise already happened. I hear you about the Civil War, but have to ask you at what point would you say such rebellion might be justified, and a preferable alternative to tyranny? Believe me, I do understand compromise and do it every day, as do we all; I think the difference here is one of tolerance threshold more than principle. And please don't think I am offering my poor self up for comparison, but we need people to speak loudly on uncompromised principle; you would not have urged Samuel Adams or Patrick Henry to moderate, would you, Neal? And we know that the Republic we got was nowhere near the ideal these men strived for, due to compromise, but wit hout their strident voices stirring sentiment in a sufficiently critical mass, how much more might it have been compromised? I don't know where your line in the sand would be to engage in civil disobedience, or to physically resist, and I certainly would never presume to challenge your convictions on that- but I am curious as to where exactly you would say there can be no more compromise? If you have read my stuff, you'll see I'm pretty consistent at advising that a time for physical engagement is not (yet) upon us, as there are still means of redress available; I therefore urge people to work within our system, not only because it is pragmatic, but because it is a moral imperative that we exhaust available resources before resorting to more drastic measures. But as much of a firebrand as you think my rant made me appear, it is not I who held a gun up in front of a crowd and challenged "From my cold dead hands!" What do you think Mr. Heston meant by that? Was it entirely symbolic, or do you think he would urge NRA management supporters to shoot and kill government agents attempting to disarm them? By the same token, where I have engaged in civil defiance, I have done so because the chances of such recourse are questionable, and the violation of rights by "officials" has been so blatant and repugnant: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a397d8e1c3a66.htm I believe, Neal, that right now, under certain circumstances, civil resistance is warranted, and California's "assault weapons" ban certainly seems to be a "reasonable" place to just say "no." I don't so much see this position as one of civil diobedience as much as obedience to the supreme law of the land over an unconstitutional, thus null and void, perversion of the law. Yet it was NRA presenting the DoJ reps as people they can work with, proud of their cordial relations, and mindful that the reps did not "have" to come and address us- the folks whose leader holds up a musket and dares you to kill him were facilitating our surrender without a fight. But of course the DoJ did have to be there- because they were there to dictate the terms of our surrender, and they wanted desperately to convince us that they were serious about enforcing this "law"- after all, they, again, desperately, didn't want to see transpire exactly what has- massive noncompliance, making them look impotent. I am proud to have added my voice to this, and would be pleased no end to think that it may have given others some sense that they were not alone, that there is strength in numbers, and that we must steel ourselves from caving. Anyway, that's about all I'm good for on this- I wrote way more than I set out to- I really don't like working this way, as I'm pretty anal about revising and rewriting my stuff a jillion times before releasing it- a rule I broke in the rant that precipitated this- but you posed some fair observations and deserve to have your concerns at least addressed, if not resolved. I really don't know if I'll be up to another long rebuttal, so I may or may not be able to give you satisfaction on future installments of this thread- there is only so much time in my day for this, and I've just exhausted it- tomorrow brings a new set of priorities. But this has been good for me- extemporaneous responses help to hone our skills against our mutual opponents. Thanks for your thoughtful correspondence and best regards. I look forward to our continued communications, and to hanging together, but not hanging together, if ya get my drift... Cordially, David Codrea ----- Original Message ----- From: "Neal J. Lang" <movwater(a)bellsouth.net> To: "David Codrea (E-mail)" <codrea4(a)earthlink.net> Cc: "Peter Mancus (E-mail)" <pmancus(a)prodigy.net>; <lrrankin(a)silcom.com>; <dial911book(a)yahoo.com>; <freematt(a)coil.com>; <declan(a)well.com>; <George(a)Orwellian.Org>; <cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net> Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 5:39 PM Subject: Re: NRA Prints HALF Of The Story (Barniskis)? > E-mail From the Desk of Neal Lang > > Hi, Pete, > I was forwarded your e-mail on the above subject by Pete Mancus. As I was > not an original recipient, I hope you don't consider my response > impertinent. > I read with interest (and sadness) your July 27th letter satirically > belittling the National Rifle Association for celebrating arguably the > "most important" political coup on behalf of the "individual right to keep > and bear arms" in the last 8 years. > I hope you don't find my corrective reply to be a flame, as I do not intend > it to be taken as such. I respect you and your efforts on behalf of "the > cause" too much. > This current epistle, while I believe errant, evidences the "passions" and > "wit" that make all your correspondence a "joy" for those "true believers" > who clearly see the "truth and the light". However, the underlying concept > that the NRA is "counter-productive" (and thereby, by implication, > undeserving of our support) is wrong. I'll tell you why. > First, your position (along with others) seems to suggest that the battle > to restore our "unalienable rights" can be won without compromise. This > position suggests that our Federal government and its Constitution were > founded on "principles" that could never be compromised. > Obviously, Dave, history tells a different story. After all, our > founders, after engaging in a desperate struggle with the most powerful > empire on earth over "principles" eloquently expressed in the "Declaration > of Independence" instituted a government by ratifying a Constitution that > codifies a "compromise" allowing slavery. A Nation born on the idea that > "all men our created equal" allowed a government based on the > "constitutional principle" that certain "man" count only a as "3/5th > persons" and "untaxed" Native Americans don't count at all. > Compared to the founders' "constitutional compromise" on "slavery", the > NRA's giving ground on "Brady" in order to demand an "Insta-Check" and a > "ban" on the government retaining records of purchasers is really quite > minor. Interestingly, by including these provisions in "Brady", we have > today a situation whereby America's chief lawman, General Ashcroft, can > insist that records illegally retained by the FBI for 180 (or more) days, > must be destroyed with 24 hours under the "rule of law". I see this as a > "glass half-full", Dave, not "half-empty". If the NRA did not have a place > at the table to get demand this compromise, we would today be "truly" > experiencing "totally unacceptable delays" in firearms purchases, along > with a "permanent registry" of firearms buyers. To think that "Brady" > would not have passed, despite NRA opposition, without these important > compromises is quite delusional, IMMHO. > The assault on Attorney General Ashcroft by "Constitutional zealots" is > also quite delusional as well, IMMHO. To say that one believes in the > "infallibility" of the U.S. Constitution and therefore I condemn the > Nation's highest law enforcement officer for saying that he will serve his > constitutional role by enforcing the law, is really quite illogical. If > you understand the Constitution, you will see that it did nothing more the > "institute a government". The form of government instituted was a > "republic", a where everyone, "the People" as well as the "magistrates" > must obey the law. > Our constitution established three distinct branches, each with different > authority and responsibility. > Article. I. Section. 1. - "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be > vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate > and House of Representatives." > Article. II. Section. 3. - "(H)e (the President) shall take Care that the > Laws be faithfully executed..." > Article III. Section. 1. - "The judicial Power of the United States shall > be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress > may from time to time ordain and establish." > Article III. Section. 2. - "(T)he supreme Court shall have appellate Jur > isdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such > Regulations as the Congress shall make." > The Executive branch, of which General Ashcroft is a member, must > "faithfully execute" the laws that are passed by the Legislative Branch and > adjudicated by Judicial branch. When one of President Clinton's "White > House Counsels" gleefully exclaimed, "Stroke of the pen, force of law, > NEAT!" - we, the believers of Constitutional law, were justifiably > horrified. Why than are we so quick to object to the Attorney General when > he states the obvious. He MUST uphold the law. He cannot on his own usurp > the authority of either the Congress or the Courts. In this he is living > his oath of office and serving as an example of the kind of "true Original > Intent" that has not been seen in Washington in at least 12 years, if not > longer. > The fact that he bravely committed his Department to the "true" meaning of > the 2nd Amendment as an "individual right" should be the cause of great > celebrations throughout our country by those of us who believe that "the > People" in fact means individuals. Instead we "parse" his words and > de-ride him for keeping his oath of office by "faithfully executing" the > Federal code he inherited. Shooting organizations should be today renaming > "Practical Shooting Matches" after this courageous American and hero of the > 2nd Amendment. > Dave, the undermining of our rights begins when governmental officials > forget we have a government of laws. Our founders thought that Congress, > not the Attorney General should make the laws of our country. General > Ashcroft agrees. Historically, the Courts determine the Constitutionality > our laws, not the Attorney General. General Ashcroft agrees. I think you > should celebrate this victory, not commiserate when a public official > recognizes it. > I am glade you still retain your "life membership" in the NRA. However, as > a member, I am not sure you can see how this GREAT organization fits in the > scheme of the defense of our "unalienable rights" in the reality of 21st > America. > Personally, I believe neither the NRA, the Constitution, POTUS, the > Attorney General, Congress, nor the Supreme Court have any bearing on the > actual existence of any my "unalienable rights". I sleep peacefully every > night in the knowledge that while my government may have the "power" to > kill me, it does not have the "authority" to "separate me from these > rights". In fact, I, myself, cannot even "give away" these "unalienable > rights" if I wanted to - else they would not be "unalienable". > The struggle to insure these rights "politically" in the "good old" U.S. of > A. must be fought on at least three fronts. These fronts are: > 1. The Judicial - overturning existing "bad laws" in the Courts. This > requires the nomination of good judges that understand the meaning of > republic and the simple plan English of the U.S. Constitution. > 2. The Legislative - passing new laws that correct existing "bad laws" and > promote expansion of our 2nd Amendment rights to the States and local > governments. This would be similar to the Civil Rights legislation of the > 1960. This requires electing good Representatives that understand the > Constitutional limits imposed on Congress. > 3. The Promotional - to insure the appropriate "public relations" climate > to insure items 1. and 2. This involves also election the "right" public > officials to nominate the "right" kind of Justices and to pass the "right" > kind of legislation. > I submit, Dave, that the NRA is carrying the battle on these three most > effectively. After all, being rated the "Most Influential" lobby in > Washington indicates to me that the NRA is nothing if it is not effective. > To fault the NRA in the absence of a more effective means of defending our > rights is quite easy. If you analyze the "political" battlefield were > meaning and effect of the 2nd Amendment as it stands today is being > determined, you will find that: > 1. Congress, as a whole, does not see the 2nd Amendment as do you or I, or > the GOA, JPFO, COA, or the NRA, for that matter. For this reason the NRA > legislative strategy since 1968 has been a "rear guard" action. Through > "political compromise" they attempted (and for the most part succeeded) to > blunt the more onerous Federal and State laws invading our 2nd Amendment > rights. > 2. The Courts, in general, and the U.S. Supreme Court, in particular, do > not see the 2nd Amendment as do you or I, or the GOA, JPFO, COA, or the > NRA, for that matter. Through lifetime, "good Behaviour" tenure, most > judges are "immune" to "politics". However, before their confirmations, > the NRA can and does have some influence in the selection, nomination and > confirmation of these Judges. Additionally, in very well prepared and > persuasive "Amicus Briefs", the NRA helps promote an "unalienable, > individual" 2nd Amendment Right in the courts. In fact, a fair reading of > their Amicus Curiae in Emerson would indicate that NRA position on > Lautenberg parallels mine (and maybe yours?) - (it can be read at: > http://www.saf.org/NRAbrief.htm ) - despite how you have painted it in your > letter. > 3. The public at large ("the People" of the Constitution) generally does > not see the 2nd Amendment the same as you or I, or the GOA, JPFO, COA, or > the NRA, for that matter. This is our "PR gap". I think the NRA has been > most effective on this front in the "battle", as well. While accepting > their inevitable defeat in Congressional on the "Assault Weapons Ban", in > 1994 the NRA came back with a "vengeance" that helped account for one of > the most historic political "turnarounds" in U.S. history, giving control > of Congress to the more "2nd Amendment friendly" Republicans. This caused > our "true" enemies to institute those IRS audits about which you write in > revenge for NRA part in their worse 20th Century political loss. > Do I wish we lived in a utopia where all gun owners truly understood their > rights and voted? You bet. But the sad truth is, Dave, many gun owners > haven't a clue, and many of those that do, don't bother to vote. This is > the "real world" in which the NRA is attempting to "hold the line". Do > they make mistakes? Of course they do. But on balance, IMMHO, without NRA > we would be today looking at British-like total bans on all firearms. If > you are fair, I think you will agree. > While we need to help this organization to "stay on the mark", we also must > recognize their tremendous contribution. As such we must be careful not to > destroy this truly effective and necessary organization, as we attempt to > promote the "true" meaning of "unalienable rights". I fear, my friend, > that sometimes passionate words, even amongst friends and "true believers", > can also be damaging and counter-productive. > One reason, Dave, I enjoy so much your "in your face" correspondence > directed at the real "forces of evil" is the passion you display in > "fighting the good fight". I love the way you verbally "hold them by their > nose while you kick their ass". However, that said, I also think when > addressing the "choir", some check on passion in the direction of > presenting the "all the facts" might be the "order of the day". While > "tearing down" is sometimes necessary in order to "build-up", care must be > used when instructing on "enemy recognition". > A fair reading of this latest epistle of yours has the NRA as the "enemy". > IMMHO, Dave, they are not. If enough of NRA members that truly respect > you take you at your word, serious damage will be done to the NRA and also > to our "right to keep and bear arms". If that happens, the opportunity to > re-take our "rights" on the three fronts of the Legislative; the Judiciary > and the Public Opinion will be lost leaving only one "Civil War" as the > only available option. I don't think I need to remind you, my friend, that > the last "Civil War", killed more Americans that all the conflicts we were > involved in - combined. > Remember, Dave, when it comes to "2nd Amendment rights", we will, in fact, > "all hang separately, if we can't hang together". > Keep the Faith, > > Neal > Neal J. Lang (Signed) > E-mail: movwater(a)bellsouth.net > > >

1 0

Watchdog
by Drake Caldwell 30 Jul '01

30 Jul '01

I have been looking for an in-depth analysis of Watchdog 7.0.2 by Fischer International Systems. An evaluation is not included in the NSA's trusted os list. I was hoping you could help me out. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

1 0

Phreaking
by _^[KAPO]^_ 30 Jul '01

30 Jul '01

Hola ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- En 1er lugar me voy a presentar, soy _^[KAPO]^_ un newbie de irc.terra.es, fundador del canal #eurohack y webmaster de www.eurohack.cjb.net, soy principiante en esto del hacking, cracking, phreaking... me chifla todo este mundo, pero en especial el del hacking y el de phreaking, pero tengo un problema, en Internet hay miles de textos de hacking, mejores y peores, pero de phreaking no he visto muchos, he visto uno tuyo y otro del wardialer que ahora no recuerdo su autor, te escribo para ver si me haces el favor de facilitarme url's de páginas en las que pueda encontrar textos buenos sobre phreaking, si me hiciese ese favor se lo agradecería. También le escribo para hacerle una proposición, estoy fundando un portal con un amigo que también es newbie, el portal trata principalmente de Hacking, Cracking, Phreaking, Sistemas Operativos, Seguridad Informática, etc y luego tiene temas secundarios como musica, rol... en estos temas secundarios se aceptan todo tipo de temas. Tengo un problema de personal, al igual que me pasa con los textos de phreaking me pasa con la gente que se encargue de la sección phreaking de mi portal, hasta ahora no he encontrado a nadie que controle realmente de phreaking y leyendo tu textos del caller ID pues me pregunto si le gustaría participar en esta sección de mi portal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Espero su respuesta, saludos. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- -- By _^[KAPO]^_ -- albeca(a)eresmas.com kapotnt(a)hotmail.com Puedes encontrarme en el irc.terra.es canal #EuroHack al cual puedes acceder desde el acceso a chat que tengo instalado en mi página www.eurohack.cjb.net (la página del canal)

1 0

Spune-i unui prieten despre Best50
by romania3＠best50.com 30 Jul '01

30 Jul '01

Cautati site-uri web pe Internet Best50 in 3 minute! De ce sa nu navigati in acest mod? Best50 a creat o modalitate originala si de mare impact de a informa gratuit oamenii despre cel mai bine clasate 50 pagini de web. Directoare gratuite cu cele mai populare pagini web de pretutindeni! Cautati acum oferta pentru Romania a clasamentului Best50: 3. International Educatie pe Internet: Astazi, in SUA, Uniunea Europeana, Germania si in tarile dezvoltate (si chiar in cele subdezvoltate) exista o penurie de programatori profesionisti. Situatia de pe piata de munca IT este astfel incat exista din ce in ce mai multi utilizatori de fel de fel de produse software, in timp ce numarul programatorilor care creeaza aceste produse nu poate sustine trendul crescator al cererii. Dar cum va evolua aceasta tendinta �n viitor? Cererea de programatori va fi constanta, apreciata si recompensata financiar la nivele inalte. Poti sa devii un programator de meserie, sau aceasta poate sa fie doar o activitate conexa celei de baza. Educatie Internationala pe Internet pentru India: Vreti sa dobanditi cunostinte si sa obtineti o diploma de profesionist... Vreti sa avansati in propria tara sau in strainatate... Ajutati-va pe voi insiva... Deveniti programator! De ce meseria de programator = meseria zilei? INSCRIEREA in ROMANIA pentru cursurile de programatori prin educatie pe Internet. - educatia si comunicarea cu scoala se fac via e-mail si Internet - nu trebuie sa fiti conectat on-line cu scoala, lectiile fiind trimise in fisiere care pot fi accesate off-line oricand in timpul zilei - posibilitatea de comunicare cu scoala din propriul apartament, locuinta sau oras - intr-o perioada de 12 luni puteti asimila cunostinte de programare in Visual Basic si C++, cele mai cerute limbaje de programare - dupa programul anual de educatie puteti obtine o diploma dubla: de la Institutele din SUA si cel german - nu se cer cunostinte anterioare despre calculatoare... DESCRIEREA ALTOR servicii de educatie la distanta prin Internet ale AHSI: - Crearea de pagini web: Front Page 2000 - Web Design avansat: Macromedia: Dreamweaver 4 (Dreamweaver Ultradev 4 / ASP/), Flash 5, Fireworks 4 - Cursuri de limbi straine: engleza si germana Modalitatea de contact locala pentru ROMANIA - Telefon: 091-227059 ------------------------------- Daca doriti sa vedeti clasamentul celor mai bune 50 site-uri web Best50 (faceti click pe link-ul de mai jos sau copiati si lipiti link-ul in browser): http://1064162083/%6c%30%6c%397%36%35%34%6c%39%387/%39%6c%30%39%3 3%34%35%367%387%3422%34%33%34%35%36%36%38%6c%30%38.h%74m%6c ------------------------------------------------ Acest e-mail este trimis ca un mesaj standard "Spune unui prieten despre Best50". Puteti trimite de asemenea acest mesaj unui prieten. Pentru SCOATERE mergeti pe site-ul Best50 cu link-ul din Mailing List si trimiteti un e-mail cu optiunea Unsubscribe.

1 0

RE: DOJ jails reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist subpoenas
by Trei, Peter 30 Jul '01

30 Jul '01

> ---------- > From: Black Unicorn[SMTP:unicorn@schloss.li] >From: <mmotyka(a)lsil.com> wrote > > Declan, > > The larger problem notwithstanding there's at least one little bit of > > language in this piece that is odd : > > > > "He said the government is > > seeking all of Leggett's > > material, including all > > originals and copies." [...] > > > > Looks like a reporter ( or anyone else for that matter ) should keep > > well hidden backups of their notes and work so that they can comply with > > Napolean complexes, fishing expeditions and spin control operations and > > not lose their life's work. > > No. Well hidden backups would put the reporter in a position of contempt, > committing obstruction of justice or perjury. Better to escrow such > documents > with an attorney in a jurisdiction not likely to cooperate with the United > States. (I can suggest several to interested parties privately). > I'm curious what the term 'copy' refers to when the Internet and encryption gets involved. If a reporter posted an encrypted copy of her notes to usenet on a regular basis, she could recover them anytime, anywhere, from etin.com, dejanews, or any of the other news archiving services. However, if ordered to 'turn over all originals and copies', what can she do? Ask deja to dismount a drive and send it to the court? Ask the NSA to please gather up all their tapes which had copies and send them? Isn't there an implied and anachronistic assumption here that a requested private document is physically seperable from other private documents, and that to be private a document has to be under the authors physical control? And that there is a meaningful distinction between an 'original' and a 'copy'? This comes of a the same problem we find with so much of the IP arguement, that information exists only bound to some physical object, and shares it's limitations. I can only assume that the court, for reasons which seem unclear but which seem to amount to punishment, wish to deny her access to her own work. If many copies exist which are readable only by her, but not under her control, how can she be so deprived? (I suppose the court could order her to forget her passphrase :-) [I'm not addressing the issue of forced exposure of keys, just the information-theoretic notion of destroying or sequestering widely distributed information, and how that collides with the assumptions of ill-educated or maleific judges] Peter Trei

2 1