From mikeedso at wuzzlenorple.com Tue Oct 5 11:21:31 1999 From: mikeedso at wuzzlenorple.com (mikeedso at wuzzlenorple.com) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 14:21:31 -0400 Subject: Win a FREE Palm Pilot!! 5772 Message-ID: <00002e945f69$00004e15$0000168c@mail.wuzzlenorple.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 225 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Vin_Suprynowicz at lvrj.com Fri Oct 8 18:38:28 1999 From: Vin_Suprynowicz at lvrj.com (Vin Suprynowicz) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 18:38:28 -0700 Subject: Oct. 10 column -- "free market" in the skies? Message-ID: FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED OCT. 10, 1999 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Let's launch an 'all-armed, all-smoking' airline A number of readers wrote in response to my column of Oct. 3, about bored functionaries "randomly" rooting through my laundry and personal effects even after my bags have cleared our now-standard metal detectors and X-ray machines. Many noted that private airlines have a right of private contract, which should allow them to set any such requirements they please, since we passengers always have the right to patronize another airline. I'm familiar with the argument for freedom of voluntary contract. In this case, it's purest steer manure. Suppose I raised $100 million and proposed to start AirGanja, "America's only all-armed, all-smoking airline"? I'd beef up my on-board air conditioning so I could advertise that our air quality is better than our competitors' even if the passengers on either side of you choose to chain-smoke cigars. My "flight attendants" would hand out free marijuana in First Class once airborne, and politely offer each boarding passenger a metal magazine (or revolver speed-loader) full or any caliber ammo they choose, urging them to reload their weapons for the duration of the flight with my special color-coded frangible rounds, designed to blow the head off any hijacker without penetrating our pressure cabins. (Needless to say, "controlled" drugs could not be used until we're airborne, at which point we're out of the jurisdiction of any local prohibitionist deviants -- the precedent already having been set by the fact that no airline today will refuse to sell you a cocktail while they're passing over the dry counties of Texas or Tennessee.) Of course, I'd charge a 15 percent premium for these improved services. Either I'd grow rich -- forcing my competitors to start offering some of the same options and services -- or, if my idea proved unpopular with the paying public, I'd go bankrupt. That would be a free market in air travel, and you would indeed remain free to choose a "non-smoking, no guns," strip-search airline (if that somehow makes you feel safer) instead of mine. Chance the FAA would allow me to launch such a competing service? Pinch yourself; you're dreaming. If such suggestions now sound absurd, it's only because we've forgotten what it was like to live in a free country. The average train passenger in 1912 could easily have found herself seated opposite a fellow passenger armed with a loaded revolver (concealed or otherwise), smoking an Indian hemp cigarette, and carrying a hip flask of laudanum. In fact, your great-grandmother would probably have felt somewhat more secure under such circumstances, knowing this fellow American was prepared to resist any attempted train robbery, as well as to provide a sip of cough syrup should the baby (your grandfather) grow fretful. The fact that we find it unthinkable today that an airline might be allowed any such options only means we have grown used to living under a burgeoning variety of fascism, an economic system in which private corporations are allowed to keep private title to their properties and extract certain after-tax profits (providing they don't grow large enough to attract the attention of the "Anti-Trust Division"), but where all substantive decisions about routes, "security," and so forth are actually made on a "one-size-fits-all" basis by unelected government functionaries. To argue any part of the current scenario is a true "voluntary, free contract" between passenger and airline is like saying the Todt Organization's slave laborers in various cannon works in Nazi Germany had no right to blame the government for their plight, since they'd entered into a "voluntary contract" with their employer. ("Volunteer for this labor contract, or go to the death camps. Choose quickly.") "Voluntary contract," indeed. I'm free "to not use their service" -- and try to find a passenger train with regular service from Colorado Springs to Las Vegas? And how long do you think we'll be free from having our luggage searched and being require to show our "government-issued photo ID" on the trains and highways? Whoops. "Random highway checkpoint" stops are already part of the War on Drugs, aren't they? And reporter P.L. Wyckoff of The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger reported this week: "They haven't attracted the attention that drug searches on the New Jersey Turnpike and other highways have. But charges of racial profiling are being leveled on another busy battlefield in the drug war -- the nation's trains and train stations. "Larry Bland, a black Bethesda, Md., resident, says he had just walked off a train in Richmond, Va., in July when police told him they needed to search his bag because drugs were coming through the station and he 'fit the profile.' "Carlos A. Hernandez, a former Newark, N.J., policeman, believes he was singled out for a tense drug search of his Amtrak sleeper cabin coming back from Miami that same month simply because his name is Hispanic. ... "Civil libertarians and attorneys say that, whatever the truth for Bland and Hernandez, such cases are widespread. ... 'That is really just a sliver of what's going on out there,' said David Harris, a University of Toledo law professor who prepared a national report for the American Civil Liberties Union on racial profiling on the highways. "Train searches 'have been going on for a long time,' agrees Georgetown law professor David Cole. ..." Vin Suprynowicz, assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, is author of the new new book, "Send in the Waco Killers," available at 1-800-244-2224 or via web site http://www.thespiritof76.com/wacokillers.html. ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt at 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/ ************************************************************************** From Jim Sat Oct 9 17:17:40 1999 From: Jim (Jim) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 19:17:40 -0500 (CDT) Subject: CDR: Re: Inferno: The Constitution & Gun Rights: It's bigger than the 2nd alone (fwd) Message-ID: > Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 17:04:05 -0500 > From: Sean Roach > Subject: CDR: Re: Inferno: The Constitution & Gun Rights: It's bigger than > the 2nd alone (fwd) > I was under the impression that that applied only to the army. I > thought that it was the intention to keep the navy going full time. There was no intent not to keep the army going full-time. The intent was to keep them from getting funding for long periods of time. In other words to make it harder for them to build a long-term command structure and weapons cache's (ie hide trusted soldiers away for rainy days). The army is intended for repelling invasions and insurrections, how often do those happen and how many last more than two years? If an actual invasion were to take place martial law would be invoked and the budget limits would be irrelevant at that point. But your point is true enough, and I was hoping somebody would bring this aspect up. It has some interesting points that don't seem to have been discussed. If you or others know of references I'd appreciate a vector. If we accept this view (which I have no problem with, it'd be hard for a Navy to invade Kansas - navies are self limiting) we are left with joint-contracts that involve the army and navy are unconstitutional. The other side would be that the navy must accept the more strict contractual limitations imposed on the army by the Constitution (what I actualy prefer because of new weapons systems). The intent is to keep the army on a short leash and to be able to simply bypass this by working with other arms of the military would be contrary to the Constitutions intent. One could transfer all the army soldiers to navy command and impliment an oppressive regime that way. I don't believe that was what was intended. It also raises the fact that since the Army Air Corp was turned into the Air Force (and this applies to the Navy and Marine Corp. as well) and no specific guidance was made via constitutional amendment as to its budget constraints it may be unconstitutional as currently implimented. Per the 10th there is nothing that gives Congress the authority to create new military forces outside of the army and navy. This should be done via a constitutional amendment. What we have today is a joint command that integrates all the various military forces under one umbrella. That joint command is an arm of the executive branch and not Congress, that may be unconstitutional itself. This raises the question of how seperate they are now and how congruent with the Constitution it actualy is. So, because of this the Joint Chiefs and the Pentagon may be unconstitutional as currently implimented, or one could argue that all budgets must be limited to 2 years. Since the Constitution requires such budgets to be reviewed from time to time it implies that a full budget review of the military is required every two years. > However, it is not my place to say that they would have done this had > they had the chance. If you're a citizen of the US not only is it your place it's your duty. > Too many of our regulations are based on this belief that our founding > fathers would have seen things "my" way. I hate that the intent of the > constitution is ignored so blatently, but judging intent is like proving > opinion. To quote Jefferson: The earth belonds to the living, not the dead. The founding fathers wanted Americans to be free peoples pursuing their own individual life, liberty, and happiness. It is the duty of all Americans to protect those rights, even from other Americans. We have to decide the way *we* want to live and the kind of world our children will inheret. The kind of world our forefathers had and the decisions they made within that milieu are good for exemplary review only. Santyana is a good guide. If nothing else it is clear the fight is never over. No matter what we do our children will have to fight it all over again on different ground and different issues. We should at least give them a fighting chance. I don't believe for a moment the founding fathers felt they had created a once-and-for-all document. Nor do I believe they felt they were living at the epitome of technical and social achievement within the total history of mankind. Part of Jeffersons stock and trade was advancement, it's why he created the University of Virginia. They knew they couldn't predict the future and the best peoples to judge it were the ones living it. What they wanted was a mechanism that would guarantee that the poeple had a say and were not ruled over by a despot or tyranny. They hoped to give us a good chance at reaching our individual and social goals, what those goals were are for us to decide. We, not the founding fathers, have to live with them after all. They were, if nothing else, simply trying to be good parents (both to a country and to their biological children) and teach us basic principles. > I'd like to see something more like the swiss have. Everyone gets > basic. Perhaps as part of grades 11-12. Some few can stay on in > administrative roles throughout. And rely entirely on the draft, but > only for threats on home ground. I don't believe in the draft, it is coersion and is contrary to the tenets of the Constitution. An army made of people who don't *want* to fight for their country will lose. An army of peoples who will die rather than surrender their liberty will always win, even if they are all killed they deny the oppressor their goals. One does not give up democracy to protect democracy. This does point up one aspect of nuclear defence that has also seldome been discussed, nuclear suicide. Instead of pointing weapons at other countries one points the weapons (lot's of them) at oneself. If another country begins a nuclear conflict (which is inherently unwinnable) the Earth as we know it will become uninhabitable. Who wants to subject their peoples to the starvation and other privations that will bring on. It is better to kill oneself quickly and humanely and in that act poison the well so the enemy suffers at their own hands and in the worst way. I believe we will never get rid of nuclear weapons, and shouldn't, and this is the only sane way to control their use. [1] From Jim Sat Oct 9 17:17:40 1999 From: Jim (Jim) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 19:17:40 -0500 (CDT) Subject: CDR: Re: Inferno: The Constitution & Gun Rights: It's bigger than the 2nd alone (fwd) Message-ID: > Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 17:04:05 -0500 > From: Sean Roach > Subject: CDR: Re: Inferno: The Constitution & Gun Rights: It's bigger than > the 2nd alone (fwd) > I was under the impression that that applied only to the army. I > thought that it was the intention to keep the navy going full time. There was no intent not to keep the army going full-time. The intent was to keep them from getting funding for long periods of time. In other words to make it harder for them to build a long-term command structure and weapons cache's (ie hide trusted soldiers away for rainy days). The army is intended for repelling invasions and insurrections, how often do those happen and how many last more than two years? If an actual invasion were to take place martial law would be invoked and the budget limits would be irrelevant at that point. But your point is true enough, and I was hoping somebody would bring this aspect up. It has some interesting points that don't seem to have been discussed. If you or others know of references I'd appreciate a vector. If we accept this view (which I have no problem with, it'd be hard for a Navy to invade Kansas - navies are self limiting) we are left with joint-contracts that involve the army and navy are unconstitutional. The other side would be that the navy must accept the more strict contractual limitations imposed on the army by the Constitution (what I actualy prefer because of new weapons systems). The intent is to keep the army on a short leash and to be able to simply bypass this by working with other arms of the military would be contrary to the Constitutions intent. One could transfer all the army soldiers to navy command and impliment an oppressive regime that way. I don't believe that was what was intended. It also raises the fact that since the Army Air Corp was turned into the Air Force (and this applies to the Navy and Marine Corp. as well) and no specific guidance was made via constitutional amendment as to its budget constraints it may be unconstitutional as currently implimented. Per the 10th there is nothing that gives Congress the authority to create new military forces outside of the army and navy. This should be done via a constitutional amendment. What we have today is a joint command that integrates all the various military forces under one umbrella. That joint command is an arm of the executive branch and not Congress, that may be unconstitutional itself. This raises the question of how seperate they are now and how congruent with the Constitution it actualy is. So, because of this the Joint Chiefs and the Pentagon may be unconstitutional as currently implimented, or one could argue that all budgets must be limited to 2 years. Since the Constitution requires such budgets to be reviewed from time to time it implies that a full budget review of the military is required every two years. > However, it is not my place to say that they would have done this had > they had the chance. If you're a citizen of the US not only is it your place it's your duty. > Too many of our regulations are based on this belief that our founding > fathers would have seen things "my" way. I hate that the intent of the > constitution is ignored so blatently, but judging intent is like proving > opinion. To quote Jefferson: The earth belonds to the living, not the dead. The founding fathers wanted Americans to be free peoples pursuing their own individual life, liberty, and happiness. It is the duty of all Americans to protect those rights, even from other Americans. We have to decide the way *we* want to live and the kind of world our children will inheret. The kind of world our forefathers had and the decisions they made within that milieu are good for exemplary review only. Santyana is a good guide. If nothing else it is clear the fight is never over. No matter what we do our children will have to fight it all over again on different ground and different issues. We should at least give them a fighting chance. I don't believe for a moment the founding fathers felt they had created a once-and-for-all document. Nor do I believe they felt they were living at the epitome of technical and social achievement within the total history of mankind. Part of Jeffersons stock and trade was advancement, it's why he created the University of Virginia. They knew they couldn't predict the future and the best peoples to judge it were the ones living it. What they wanted was a mechanism that would guarantee that the poeple had a say and were not ruled over by a despot or tyranny. They hoped to give us a good chance at reaching our individual and social goals, what those goals were are for us to decide. We, not the founding fathers, have to live with them after all. They were, if nothing else, simply trying to be good parents (both to a country and to their biological children) and teach us basic principles. > I'd like to see something more like the swiss have. Everyone gets > basic. Perhaps as part of grades 11-12. Some few can stay on in > administrative roles throughout. And rely entirely on the draft, but > only for threats on home ground. I don't believe in the draft, it is coersion and is contrary to the tenets of the Constitution. An army made of people who don't *want* to fight for their country will lose. An army of peoples who will die rather than surrender their liberty will always win, even if they are all killed they deny the oppressor their goals. One does not give up democracy to protect democracy. This does point up one aspect of nuclear defence that has also seldome been discussed, nuclear suicide. Instead of pointing weapons at other countries one points the weapons (lot's of them) at oneself. If another country begins a nuclear conflict (which is inherently unwinnable) the Earth as we know it will become uninhabitable. Who wants to subject their peoples to the starvation and other privations that will bring on. It is better to kill oneself quickly and humanely and in that act poison the well so the enemy suffers at their own hands and in the worst way. I believe we will never get rid of nuclear weapons, and shouldn't, and this is the only sane way to control their use. [1] From Steve Sat Oct 9 22:38:24 1999 From: Steve (Steve) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 22:38:24 -0700 Subject: An immediate way to end federal gun control? Message-ID: At 10:32 PM 10/9/99 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: This is not new turf. In my view you are correct, but the federales have stolen the show through a number of legal shennagans and the refusal of courts to hold them to their constitutional mandates. For an excellent review of this topic, see Brannon P. Denning, Palladium of Liberty? Causes and Consequences of the Federalization of State Militias in the Twentieth Century, http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/denpall.html ----- End of forwarded message from Steve Schear ----- Actualy it's not the same thing at all. As to federalization of state militia's. This should surprise no-one since states can't keep troops of any form, even militia. The Constitution is also clear that there can be only *one* militia and it is a national or federal militia. Even Mr. Denning doesn't seem to catch the paradox because of his use of 'militias' in the plural. It also misses the point that individual rights to own weapons is *not* based on the requirement to have a militia. If the Constitution is taken as a whole the right of the individual to own and bear arms is in addition to both the federal military and militia. Also, his claim that membership in the Militia is universal is faulty as well, membership is voluntary but by no means mandatory as he implies. There are a couple of issues with the current implimentation of the National Guard as well. If it's the militia then there can't be 50 of them organized by state. If they're not the militia then the state funding that goes directly into them is unconstitutional. The reality is that at the federal level there are three military forces; army, navy, and militia. I am unaware of any assaults on federal gun control laws that use this line of reasoning; states are required to protect themselves against invasion or periods of domestic violence not dependant upon federal or even state resources and that this authorizes private ownership of weapons. If you can point to a summary of such a case I'd appreciate it. From Steve Sat Oct 9 22:38:24 1999 From: Steve (Steve) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 22:38:24 -0700 Subject: An immediate way to end federal gun control? Message-ID: At 10:32 PM 10/9/99 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: This is not new turf. In my view you are correct, but the federales have stolen the show through a number of legal shennagans and the refusal of courts to hold them to their constitutional mandates. For an excellent review of this topic, see Brannon P. Denning, Palladium of Liberty? Causes and Consequences of the Federalization of State Militias in the Twentieth Century, http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/denpall.html ----- End of forwarded message from Steve Schear ----- Actualy it's not the same thing at all. As to federalization of state militia's. This should surprise no-one since states can't keep troops of any form, even militia. The Constitution is also clear that there can be only *one* militia and it is a national or federal militia. Even Mr. Denning doesn't seem to catch the paradox because of his use of 'militias' in the plural. It also misses the point that individual rights to own weapons is *not* based on the requirement to have a militia. If the Constitution is taken as a whole the right of the individual to own and bear arms is in addition to both the federal military and militia. Also, his claim that membership in the Militia is universal is faulty as well, membership is voluntary but by no means mandatory as he implies. There are a couple of issues with the current implimentation of the National Guard as well. If it's the militia then there can't be 50 of them organized by state. If they're not the militia then the state funding that goes directly into them is unconstitutional. The reality is that at the federal level there are three military forces; army, navy, and militia. I am unaware of any assaults on federal gun control laws that use this line of reasoning; states are required to protect themselves against invasion or periods of domestic violence not dependant upon federal or even state resources and that this authorizes private ownership of weapons. If you can point to a summary of such a case I'd appreciate it. From Jim Sun Oct 10 07:10:59 1999 From: Jim (Jim) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 09:10:59 -0500 (CDT) Subject: CDR: Re: An immediate way to end federal gun control? (fwd) Message-ID: ----- Forwarded message from Steve Schear ----- From Jim Sun Oct 10 07:10:59 1999 From: Jim (Jim) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 09:10:59 -0500 (CDT) Subject: CDR: Re: An immediate way to end federal gun control? (fwd) Message-ID: ----- Forwarded message from Steve Schear ----- From Sean Mon Oct 11 14:38:30 1999 From: Sean (Sean) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 16:38:30 -0500 Subject: CDR: Constitution, gun rights, et al Message-ID: I got this in response to something I said here. I decided to pass it along to you. >Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 14:03:19 -0400 >From: Steven Furlong >Subject: Constitution, gun rights, et al > >force with trained leaders. You said you don't know the word to >descibe it.> > >Sounds like a militia. In at least some implementations, the private >soldiers, and I use the term advisedly, trained once in a while to >familiarize them with group movements, but didn't have any other >peacetime responsibilities. Officers were also "regular folks" but >they got more extensive training in tactics, communications, >logistics, and the whole shebang. > >That worked when the basic tools of war were the soldier's personal >long guns and horse-drawn wagons, and the scope of the militia was >much smaller, with all members of a company, including the leaders, >being drawn from the same community. I don't know that it would be >effective with today's complexity of weapons systems and logistics >systems. The scale of military operations is another problem. I have >some ideas on simplifying the technical systems. Bringing the scale >of military operations back to a militia level is a political and >social question, and I don't think it can be addressed in the US >without some major societal changes. > >I'm sending this via email rather than by posting to the c-punks >list because I'm not a subscriber to the list. It seems that I >_could_ post, but think it would be rude. Feel free to quote this >message if you want to post a response. ----- End of forwarded message from Sean Roach ----- I see the point he's making, I think it makes some assumptions that aren't realy valid though. At the federal level you have: army, navy, militia. All are managed by Congress unless they hand authority to the President. In all cases the funding and regulation comes from Congress. The states do get to appoint the officers of the Militia however. I assume this is under the presumption that such officers are more likely to refuse to follow federal orders if those orders are clearly outside the line. It's a sort of checks and balances. Now if we look at the section on states, that I claim gives the states the responsibility to keep an indipendant force in time of invasion, there is no stipulation as to who or how they are to be selected, organized, or funded; other than it ain't federal or state doing it. One could argue that this would then mean counties/parishes and then indipendant municipalities before it gets to individual citizens, but that seems to beg the question in my mind; not to mention they are not involved in the government of the US. It can't be federal because there is no delegate that directs the Congress to allocate funds for this use. It can't be the states doing the funding since they are specificaly prohibited from doing this, without permission from Congress, until an actual invasion or a situation that 'will not admit delay'. This implies the sherrif and associated folks going from house to house asking for help from the citizens as they see fit. Bubba and all his rowdies (those that haven't been co-opted by the federal forces so far) along with Grandpa and the two Jones' sisters ( :) ) getting in their pick-ups and going hunting. It seems to me that it is the lower civil authorities deputizing the commen citizen as a last ditch defence effort. I think 'deputized citizen' is a more accurate term to describe the participants of this last ditch effort to retain freedom. As to the claim of militia or citizen soldiers not being effective, there are plenty of bush wars going on right now that would argue contrary to this. -- ____________________________________________________________________ When I die, I would like to be born again as me. Hugh Hefner ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com jchoate at open-forge.org www.open-forge.org -------------------------------------------------------------------- From Sean Mon Oct 11 14:38:30 1999 From: Sean (Sean) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 16:38:30 -0500 Subject: CDR: Constitution, gun rights, et al Message-ID: I got this in response to something I said here. I decided to pass it along to you. >Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 14:03:19 -0400 >From: Steven Furlong >Subject: Constitution, gun rights, et al > >force with trained leaders. You said you don't know the word to >descibe it.> > >Sounds like a militia. In at least some implementations, the private >soldiers, and I use the term advisedly, trained once in a while to >familiarize them with group movements, but didn't have any other >peacetime responsibilities. Officers were also "regular folks" but >they got more extensive training in tactics, communications, >logistics, and the whole shebang. > >That worked when the basic tools of war were the soldier's personal >long guns and horse-drawn wagons, and the scope of the militia was >much smaller, with all members of a company, including the leaders, >being drawn from the same community. I don't know that it would be >effective with today's complexity of weapons systems and logistics >systems. The scale of military operations is another problem. I have >some ideas on simplifying the technical systems. Bringing the scale >of military operations back to a militia level is a political and >social question, and I don't think it can be addressed in the US >without some major societal changes. > >I'm sending this via email rather than by posting to the c-punks >list because I'm not a subscriber to the list. It seems that I >_could_ post, but think it would be rude. Feel free to quote this >message if you want to post a response. ----- End of forwarded message from Sean Roach ----- I see the point he's making, I think it makes some assumptions that aren't realy valid though. At the federal level you have: army, navy, militia. All are managed by Congress unless they hand authority to the President. In all cases the funding and regulation comes from Congress. The states do get to appoint the officers of the Militia however. I assume this is under the presumption that such officers are more likely to refuse to follow federal orders if those orders are clearly outside the line. It's a sort of checks and balances. Now if we look at the section on states, that I claim gives the states the responsibility to keep an indipendant force in time of invasion, there is no stipulation as to who or how they are to be selected, organized, or funded; other than it ain't federal or state doing it. One could argue that this would then mean counties/parishes and then indipendant municipalities before it gets to individual citizens, but that seems to beg the question in my mind; not to mention they are not involved in the government of the US. It can't be federal because there is no delegate that directs the Congress to allocate funds for this use. It can't be the states doing the funding since they are specificaly prohibited from doing this, without permission from Congress, until an actual invasion or a situation that 'will not admit delay'. This implies the sherrif and associated folks going from house to house asking for help from the citizens as they see fit. Bubba and all his rowdies (those that haven't been co-opted by the federal forces so far) along with Grandpa and the two Jones' sisters ( :) ) getting in their pick-ups and going hunting. It seems to me that it is the lower civil authorities deputizing the commen citizen as a last ditch defence effort. I think 'deputized citizen' is a more accurate term to describe the participants of this last ditch effort to retain freedom. As to the claim of militia or citizen soldiers not being effective, there are plenty of bush wars going on right now that would argue contrary to this. Using poetic license; I suspect that if you got a squad of Texans chasing a group of non-US soldiers out in the bush of Texas we'd have 'em for lunch. The same holds for just about every other state as well. I can just imagine the results of a bunch of Russians (for example) trying to chase Cajuns in the swamps of Louisiana. Or American Indians in S. Dakota. They couldn't beat the Mujahadin and they sure as hell won't beat us on our home turf. Compared to a Dog Soldier the Mujahadin are amateurs. "Give me liberty, or give me death." -- ____________________________________________________________________ Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From Jim Mon Oct 11 16:02:10 1999 From: Jim (Jim) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:02:10 -0500 (CDT) Subject: CDR: Constitution, gun rights, et al (fwd) Message-ID: ----- Forwarded message from Sean Roach ----- From Jim Mon Oct 11 16:02:10 1999 From: Jim (Jim) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:02:10 -0500 (CDT) Subject: CDR: Constitution, gun rights, et al (fwd) Message-ID: ----- Forwarded message from Sean Roach ----- From worldgrpnet8243l53 at pro.com Wed Oct 27 00:06:38 1999 From: worldgrpnet8243l53 at pro.com (worldgrpnet8243l53 at pro.com) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1999 05:06:38 -0200 Subject: Create a MONTHLY PAYCHECK from your computer - Message-ID: <020a30e30e4a$2686e0a4$8ad40dd6@qtmrle> Hello - - You get emails every day, offering to show you how to make money. Most of these emails are from people who are NOT making any money. And they expect you to listen to them? Enough. If you want to make money with your computer, then you should hook up with a group that is actually DOING it. We are making a large, continuing income every month. What's more - we will show YOU how to do the same thing. This business is done completely by internet and email, and you can even join for free to check it out first. If you can send an email, you can do this. No special "skills" are required. How much are we making? Anywhere from $2000 to $9000 per month. We are real people, and most of us work at this business part-time. But keep in mind, we do WORK at it - I am not going to insult your intelligence by saying you can sign up, do no work, and rake in the cash. That kind of job does not exist. But if you are willing to put in 10-12 hours per week, this might be just the thing you are looking for. This is not income that is determined by luck, or work that is done FOR you - it is all based on your effort. But, as I said, there are no special skills required. And this income is RESIDUAL - meaning that it continues each month (and it tends to increase each month also). Interested? I invite you to find out more. You can get in as a free member, at no cost, and no obligation to continue if you decide it is not for you. We are just looking for people who still have that "burning desire" to find an opportunity that will reward them incredibly well, if they work at it. To grab a FREE ID#, simply reply to: nowitstime9 at excite.com and write "grab me a free membership" in the subject box. Be sure to include your: 1. First name 2. Last name 3. Email address We will confirm your position and send you a special report as soon as possible, and also Your free Member Number. That's all there's to it. We'll then send you info, and you can make up your own mind. Looking forward to hearing from you! Sincerely, Susan Losson P.S. After having several negative experiences with network marketing companies I had pretty much given up on them. This is different - there is value, integrity, and a REAL opportunity to have your own home-based business... and finally make real money on the internet. Don't pass this up..you can sign up and test-drive the program for FREE. All you need to do is get your free membership. Unsubscribing: Send a blank email to: donedeal6 at excite.com with "Remove" in the subject line. By submitting a request for a FREE DHS Club Membership, I agree to accept email from the DHS Club for both their consumer and business opportunities. This message is not intended for residents of the state of Washington, and screening of addresses has been done to the best of our technical ability. If you are Washington resident or otherwise wish to be removed from this list, just follow the removal instructions above. 8634xsxn6-106l12