- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

RE: NRA Prints HALF Of The Story (Barniskis)?
by Neal Lang 31 Jul '01

31 Jul '01

By the way, Lao Tzu said, "Brevity is the root of all grace." Shamaya Longwind Hi, Angel, Sure, Angel, but look where that got the Chinese people today. To paraphrase a great American: "Brevity it the face of tyranny is no virtue. Verbosity in defence of freedom is no vice." Keep the Faith, Neal

1 0

Mr. Wienke, help me out on this -- Re: FW: General Ashcroft make his move
by Richard Stevens 31 Jul '01

31 Jul '01

--- 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/

2 1

Pointers to news sources and other mailing lists
by Tim May 31 Jul '01

31 Jul '01

I've noticed that about 90% of traffic to the Cypherpunks list, at least the slightly-filtered list at lne.com, is now one-line pointers to news on Yahoo, CNN, ABC, LA Times, and to articles on Slashdot, Politech, Extropians, Cryptography, and other such Net outlets. If I wanted to subscribed to Perrypunks, I'd do so. If I wanted to subscribe to Declanpunks, I'd do so. (In fact, I subscribe to one of Declan's lists, the Nym list. Alas, it seems to be mostly forwarded news items and pointers.) If I wanted to subscribe to Gaylorpunks, I'd do so. And I already see more Yahoo, ZDNet, CNET, and similar headlines and stories than the NSA has bits. Having dozens of other lists is all well and good, but there is no point in bouncing their stuff around. There are exceptions, as when some particularly urgent or clueful point is made. And even then it is best for the forwarder to at least take a few minutes to introduce the post and to comment on it. This shows that he's not just dumping pointers. (And when one of my articles is "helpfully forwarded" to one of these other of the dozens of such lists, I tend to get strange personal mail from people asking me what it is I'm talking about. Sometimes I bounce them info on subscribing to the Cypherpunks list, sometimes I just give them a couple of lines of explanation. And often I don't reply at all. I think most of the "pointers" are just symptoms of laziness. It looks like people just think "cross-pollinating" without analysis is the thing to do. My solution is to add more and more of you who do this to my filter files. When the average list traffic, minus advertising, spam, pointers to Yahoo, forwarded Politech items, etc. drops to less than 3 per day, then I can finally unsubscribe completely. --Tim May P.S. The worst situation is when N different lists are copied, many of them open for posting only to subscribers. Nothing worse than having an e-mail conversation spanning N different lists. -- Timothy C. May tcmay(a)got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns

3 2

Your Membership Exchange, #439
by Your Membership Newsletter 31 Jul '01

31 Jul '01

Your Membership Exchange, Issue #439 (July 31, 2001) ______________________________________________________ Your Membership Daily Exchange >>>>>>>>>>> Issue #439 <> 07-31-01 <<<<<<<<<<<< Your place to exchange ideas, ask questions, swap links, and share your skills! ______________________________________________________ Removal/Unsubscribe instructions are included at the bottom for members who do not wish to receive additional issues of this publication. ______________________________________________________ You are a member in at least one of these programs - You should be in them all! http://www.BannersGoMLM.com http://www.ProfitBanners.com http://www.CashPromotions.com http://www.MySiteInc.com http://www.TimsHomeTownStories.com http://www.FreeLinksNetwork.com http://www.MyShoppingPlace.com http://www.BannerCo-op.com http://www.PutPEEL.com http://www.PutPEEL.net http://www.SELLinternetACCESS.com http://www.Be-Your-Own-ISP.com http://www.SeventhPower.com ______________________________________________________ Today's Special Announcement: ANNOUNCING NEW TRAINING PROGRAM FOR NETWORK MARKETERS! Discover the cash generating secrets a 26-year old used to build a downline of over 25,347 people and more than $15 million in sales! This 100% generic MLM training program goes deep behind the scenes to give you the step-by-step blueprint to solving your most pressing problems - retention, attrition, prospecting, presentations, cashflow crunches and more! With over 200 pages of secrets, strategies, techniques, ads scripts, forms and over 4 hours of instructional audio, you will have the unfair advantage over your competition! Create the MLM income you deserve. Never struggle with small checks again. CLICK HERE--> http://www.ilovemlm.com/cgi-bin/at.cgi?a=151448 ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ >> Q & A QUESTIONS: - What can I do about my computer freezing? ANSWERS: - Can images be coded so they cannot be downloaded? M. Cote: No, you can download anything on the net >> MEMBER SHOWCASES >> MEMBER *REVIEWS* - Sites to Review: #139, #140 & #141! - Three new sites to review! - Site #138 Reviewed! ______________________________________________________ >>>>>> QUESTIONS & ANSWERS <<<<<< Submit your questions & answers to MyInput(a)AEOpublishing.com QUESTIONS:

1 0

New Singapore surveillance software can detect abnormal behaviour(fwd)
by Eugene Leitl 31 Jul '01

31 Jul '01

-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204/">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 12:40:36 -0400 From: Matthew Gaylor <freematt(a)coil.com> To: extropians(a)extropy.org Subject: New Singapore surveillance software can detect abnormal behaviour Surveillance software can detect abnormal behaviour Friday July 27 7:38 AM ET New Singapore Software Can Beef Up Surveillance http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010727/tc/tech_singapore_software_dc_1.ht… SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore scientists have created new software which may beef up surveillance efforts in the future by distinguishing between a person's normal activities and suspicious behavior. The software created by researchers at the Nanyang Technological University can tell the difference between people walking, talking and acting normally, and abnormal behavior such as a fight or someone collapsing. The Singapore team recorded and classified 73 features of human movement, such as speed, direction, shape and pattern. The features were then used with existing ``neural network'' software, which can learn and remember patterns, to create a new program. ``Each of the features is actually generated from a formula ...then the learning software will be able to classify certain motion as normal or abnormal,'' associate professor Maylor Leung told Reuters on Friday. ``It's something new. No one has tried (developing it) and so far we are successful,'' he said. Images fed to the software, such as from a surveillance camera, are analyzed almost instantly and with 96 percent accuracy, Leung said. The software can trigger an alarm when unusual movements are detected, making it well suited for surveillance. Creating the artificial intelligence needed to recognize complex human motion has been a challenge, Leung said. It is difficult for the human eye to accurately judge motion, such as speed, and even harder for a software program to do so, he said. Leung is looking for partners to commercialize the software. The research, which took two and a half years, is pending publication in several technical journals. __________________________________________________________________________ Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. --- ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt(a)coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ **************************************************************************

2 1

NRA Prints HALF Of The Story (Barniskis)?
by Neal J. Lang 31 Jul '01

31 Jul '01

E-mail From the Desk of Neal Lang Hi, Dave, Again thanks for the prompt and thoughtful reply. >In re what Ashcroft can do as head of the DoJ: same thing they did after the 14th Am- protect rkba and other rights, albeit they did it there selectively. I'd like to see the DoJ prosecute a gov. agency for denying a citizen their 2A rights. You can bet THAT case would make it up to SCOTUS post-haste. Don't think that's likely, due to "pragmatism" and "compromise". I am heartened to see Metaja denied advancement- we shall see how they continue with Emerson, and if they pursue the current DoJ position... Is the 14th Amendment even valid? I have seen some interesting evidence that says maybe not. (See the Unconstitutional 14th Amendment at: http://www.barefootsworld.net/14uncon.html - for some real interesting stuff. Apparently Herr Reno wasn't the first with the "jack-booted thugs"?) ("Jack-booted thugs?" Hmmm! Didn't Wayne LaPierre of the NRA make the phrase a National Cause Celeb? Didn't George I burn his Life Member NRA card because of Wayne's use of that expression to describe our friends at ATF? Hmmm! Not bad for a HCI clone!) Anyway, assuming it was correctly passed and ratified - now what? According to the Supremes, Dave, apparently the rkba was not included in the "privileges and immunities" of the 14th Amendment (See U.S. v. Cruikshank at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=92&invol=542 - this 1875 (post 14th Amendment) case recognizes the rkba, but not for blacks in Louisiana.) You being such big a Supremes fan (e.g. Marbury v. Madison) this of must be the definitive answer for you. All General Ashcroft can do is enforce the law, Dave. The Congress must pass the laws; the Courts determine the constitutional limits of the law; and the Executive, through the AG, sees that the laws are "faithfully executed". In order to prosecute, Dave, General Ashcroft needs a violation of the Federal Code. Please provide the Federal Code cite, point out the errant governmental agency, and let's get the ball rolling. I'll bet General Ashcroft will prosecute in a heart-beat if the facts are there to indict. As for Emerson, if the 5th Circuit finds for Dr. Emerson (upholds the District Court decision) I hope DoJ pushes it to the Supremes, who must take the case, IMMHO, as the Circuits will then be disjointed on Lauternberg. Worst scenario - the 5th Circuit overturns (I don't like the delay). Next worst - the 5th Circuit upholds the District Court decision, and DoJ decides to drop the case. If so, only those lucky folks in the 5th (Texas and Louisiana) can stop worrying about Lautenberg, the rest of us still will have it over our heads. Best scenario - the 5th Circuit upholds the District Court decision, and DoJ (General Ashcroft) decides to push the case to the Supremes. Of course this a "crap shoot" but I believe Justice Thomas will be writing a 2nd Amendment decision that will make Sister Brady find Jesus, IMMHO. This would be the current DoJ position. If General Ashcroft pushes it, I hope you cut him some slack because it will be almost impossible for the Supremes to duck this one. >In re Project Exile, sorry, but you did not really answer my questions. Sorry, I must have missed it. Did you include an interrogatory sign? >While you don't mind if the fedgov usurps powers not enumerated to them if the cause is 'worthwhile', ie, taking a gangbanger off the streets, I am concerned more with the gov assuming powers that are not theirs- as heinous as the criminals are, they wreak nowhere near the human carnage and misery that governments unbound do- how much further down this slope are YOU willing to tolerate our descent? Actually I do worry about Federalism, Dave, but you brought up Marbury v. Madison, not me. Frankly I believe a good case could be made that once "the People's right to keep and bear arms" was added to the Constitution, the "power" was "enumerated" then and there. I believe this is exactly what Madison was so afraid of in adding the "Bill of Rights" in the first place. It opened areas to the Federal government he never intended they would be allowed. The originally limited Federal government now obviously has something to say about "the People's speech, religion, homes, papers, guns, presses, assemblies, etc., etc., etc." - there are Articles now addressing each of these areas. Just look at the Federal Court cases now addressing these areas. You (the big Marbury v. Madison fan) can't honestly say the Feds aren't SUPREME. Be careful what you wish for, my friend, it might be granted. We may not be able to put the genie back in the bottle, my friend. Personally, like Madison, I believe the slope started with the "Bill of Rights", was greased by Marbury v. Madison and many of Justice Marshall's decisions, and really got into full descent with the Civil War and the 14th Amendment, followed closely by Sherman Anti-trust, et. al. By the time the "New Deal" arrived, we already had an income tax, Dave, and we were pretty well "bagged and tagged". Actually your idea of "Guns for Felons" will not make the top 10 of Pro-gun PR programs, IMMHO, my friend. If the Constitution says "the People's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", there is also a corollary - that there just might be some (prisoners in Federal prisons, for example) that this could logically be exclude. So the Federal government makes laws to enforce same. Once this begins, as it did in 1793, then obviously felons might also be logically excluded. That is, of course, unless you wish to promote a system "responsibility-free rights". A convicted felon, Dave, displays a certain lack of responsibility, IMMHO. I think that there just might be some "compelling state interest" in disarming such an irresponsible person. Of course, "due process" should be the arbiter in establishing felonious behavior. Also, I have no problem with a convicted felon having his rights restored. Again, only following appropriate "due process". A "compelling state interest" insists that if one is to have the "right to keep and bear arms", they should exercise same responsibly. I think you will agree that irresponsible firearms use could prove dangerous to my, or your, or anyone's "Natural Right to Life". Walla! The States has "compelling interest". >And, again, yeah, I know NRA says they are only to use such laws against really really REALLY bad guys- but my point is, and you have not refuted it, they CAN be applied to anyone. I believe Emerson shows that there are limits. Can the government (Federal, State, and Local) disarm citizens? Yes, Dave, it happens every day, with or without "Project Exile". However, you seem to be concerned more about felons rights than you are about my wife rights. She has a "Natural Right to Life". The last time my house was "invaded" my wife arrived while the perp was still in the house. He was armed. Fortunately he bugged out the back door from our bed-room, while my wife was putting groceries away in the kitchen. Apparently all my NRA paraphernalia laying around the house induced him to "beat feet". As much as you think this crack addict deserves the rkba, Dave, I can't see it. The vast majority of "the People", including most gun-owners, feel the same way, I believe. Your fight against "Project Exile" is really hopeless and totally counter-productive, IMMHO. Worst of all it doesn't move the ball one inch forward. >To think that a government, already operating extra-Constitutionally, is going to be ever bound by the niceties of interpreting the application of their "illegal" laws according to how the NRA wants them to do it, does not compute with me. I think your good intentions may just be paving the road to Hell here- probably not under Bush, but what about under Pres. Hillary? Sorry, no matter the motive, I just don't think the ends justify the means here. If you continue to champion "gun rights for felons", Dave, we will probably see President Hillary. Jumping up and down and shouting the government acts unconstitutionally is really not making your case. To my knowledge "Project Exile" is a designed to take "armed felons" off the street. Personally I like the idea. If you have proof that "Project Exile" is really taking "honest citizens" off the street, by all means, please, present your evidence. I will then join you in "jumping up and down and shouting". But without such evidence, you have "No Sale" here, my friend. Sorry! >I don't recall advocating political firing squads, but as long as you bring it up, let me add one qualifier- I hope you agree with me that their jury of peers should be fully informed triers of law as well as fact? Just my, obviously poor, attempt a satire. "Circular Firing Squads!" Get the picture? Everyone gets in a circle and shoots at the bad guys in the middle, but instead, causes many "friendly fire casualties". I was alluding to how we can easily destroy our friends by such tactics. Actually, Dave, equating the NRA to HCI is such a tactic, IMMHO. I, too, agree in "jury nullification" of bad laws, Dave, as did our founders. >That's it for me on this. "Uncle!" Shame, Dave, just when I saw the "light at the end of the tunnel". Keep the Faith, Neal Neal J. Lang (Signed) E-mail: movwater(a)bellsouth.net

3 2

Re: Lasers and ICBMs
by Alan Olsen 31 Jul '01

31 Jul '01

On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Eugene Leitl wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Tim May wrote: > > > A lot of the calculations being sketched out here, of watts/cm^2, > > dwell times, gold coatings, etc. are slightly off-base. We've known > > for 20+ years that the kill method is to use a short pulse to "push" > > (not from the photons' momentum) in the thin wall of an ICBM's fuel > > Explosive ablation sounds like giant pulses, and chemicals lasers (the > only ones known to provide lasing output in the ballpark) don't do these > very well. So either you have to fire synchonously from many platforms, or > have a veritable Death Star out there in LEO. Several of them, in fact, to > maintain an umbrella at all times. Why is this reminding me of some of the activities of local Law enforcement? All of this talk of multiple shots fired, but no mention of what happens to those that miss or continue on past the target after hitting it. I expect that if they ever do test this thing in low earth orbit or any other space bound platform, we may see a few "accidents" that were not counted on. "Oops! Accidently hit that communications satilite. Sorry!" "Oops! Accidently hit that densely populated urban area!" Oops! "Accidently" hit Tim May's house!" alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply Alan Olsen | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys. "All power is derived from the barrel of a gnu." - Mao Tse Stallman

3 2

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