The Mental Militia Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: The collected crimes of the Hunter  (Read 21301 times)

Hunter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1438
    • Hunter at TPoL
The collected crimes of the Hunter
« on: August 26, 2009, 09:06:23 am »

Come to think of it, if I ever publish a collection, that's at least the core meme of the title right there. MamaLiberty has copies of all these, and if you know how to talk Mr. Peabody into programming the Wayback Machine you can get them all, but other than that a lot of them are lost to the web now. Some argue that's a good thing. Fortunately, I've always shown a distinct lack of judgement in that as in most other things, so I saved copies. I figure this is as good a place as any to post the ones she's not yet republished. No thank yous, just send offerings of nubile young women, gold, and precious vintage firearms.

First, the legalese.


copyright 1999-present, original publication dates will be given for each article. Permission to redistribute any article is herewith granted by the author—provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given. Please include both my nom de guerre and the original publication date and publication, and at least the BIO below if you don't mind. I wouldn't want anyone else getting indicted for my writing, after all.

----

BIO - The Hunter is an expatriate Kansas farmboy who went east to find his fortune years ago. What he found instead was a pack of damn-fool statists. He's been trying to lose them ever since. He splits his time these days between writing, cutting wood, shooting, wondering whether there are any freedom-loving single women in the world, and trying to survive and make ends meet in the howling wilderness of New England. He can usually be found slouching about the Liberty Round Table and annoying the libertarians there with blunt talk and stubborn practicality.

(I should probably change that, since LRT ain't what it used to be.. oh well)

----

A Knight of Non-Aggression is a person committed to fighting institutionalized aggression, who has taken the following oath:
 
"I swear, by my life and my love of It, to fight against all forms of tyranny. I recognize that the enabling idea that underlies and sustains tyranny is the idea that the socially organized and institutionalized initiation of the use of force against non-consenting and unwilling people can be justified, is desirable, and must be given sanction in order to avoid chaos. I further recognize that no lasting liberty can be achieved until the falsehood of this idea is widely known and pledge my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor to exposing this falsehood.

"To this battle I will turn my creative energy, I will give my time and I will devote my very being, while never allowing my self, my efforts or my cause to become the aggressor, never conceding the premise of the enemy by becoming the enemy."

I swore that oath long ago, and I figure it will eventually be the death of me.  (shrug) You pays your money, you takes your chances.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2010, 07:51:20 am by Hunter »
Logged
from an undisclosed secure location far, far outside Ohio

Hunter's Seventieth Rule: The Internet needs a "three strikes and you're out" rule. Of the gene pool, I mean.

Hunter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1438
    • Hunter at TPoL
Re: The collected crimes of the Hunter
« Reply #1 on: August 26, 2009, 09:09:30 am »

Here is a complete listing of everything that I have record of ever publishing. I've of course written a LOT more. Some of which nobody but me has (or ever will) see, the vast majority of it on mailing lists, or gaming sites, or forums, web boards, and lord knows what. Like Sam Adam's passionate speeches in the pubs of Massachusetts, those writings served their purpose, and I made no efforts to preserve them. Perhaps some day a scholar will track them all down, and write a deeply insightful analysis or something.

Anyway, I've tried to record where each article was published first, and when. Many of them I've noticed have spread around, often without anyone bothering to inform me. C'est la vie, c'est la guerre, such is the lot of a polemicist. My most famous unauthorized appearance was in the arbitration and court proceedings surrounding the Ohio incident, but that's another story...

Sorry about the rough columns, but I don't see a way to do anything nicer here; if any of you mods know a better way, knock yerself out


      
Title                                                                         where                     date
      
Peter McWilliams                                                               none                       3/3/1998
Guns for Tots                                                                   Libertarian Enterprise 11/15/1999
Stand and Deliver                                                              Sierra Times             11/1/2000
High Noon                                                                        Sierra Times             11/11/2000
Boston Anti-Election Rally                                                    Sierra Times             11/14/2000
Gun Rights - The 5% Solution                                             Sierra Times             11/17/2000
Lessons                                                                            Sierra Times             5/4/2001
Flamethrowing & Backdraft                                                  Sierra Times             5/9/2001
Bank of America Must Die                                                    Sierra Times             5/13/2001
Why Not Answer the Real Question?                                    Sierra Times              7/28/2001
Commentary on John Horstman arrest                                   Sierra Times              8/7/2001
"If it saves just one life…"                                                    Sierra Times              9/12/2001
Failing the Test                                                                  Libertarian Enterprise  9/17/2001
Imperative Now: Let Freedom Fight                                      Sierra Times              10/9/2001
Project: Safe Skies -- RKBA to the Rescue                              Project Safe Skies         10/9/2001
If You Aren't Part of the Solution, You're Part of the Problem  Sierra Times               3/1/2002
Gun Control: Opinion, or Treason?                                        Sierra Times               3/16/2002
Boston on Guns and Courage                                               Sierra Times               8/1/2002
What About "Plan B"?                                                         Sierra Times               8/2/2002
A New "Defining Moment"? Goodbye to the First Amendment  Sierra Times               8/7/2002
The Rifle Will Do If the Man Will Do                                       Sierra Times               8/8/2002
Ranch Rescue                                                                    Sierra Times               8/22/2002
Finish the Job                                                                    Sierra Times               9/6/2002
Trial by Internet                                                                 Sierra Times              9/11/2002
Liberty: The Gold That Does Not Glitter                                 Striking the Root       1/19/2004
Operation: Suntan                                                              Striking the Root       4/1/2004
Is the Free State New Hampshire?                                        Sierra Times              8/1/2004
A Closer Look at the Second Amendment                              Sierra Times              8/4/2004
Useful Idiots                                                                      Sierra Times              8/14/2004
50 Ways to Leave Leviathan                                                Doing Freedom          2/8/2008
DC vs Heller: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly                       The Price of Liberty     6/30/2008
Real Solutions for American and Mexican Violence                   The Price of Liberty    4/6/2009
Canaries in the Coal Mine                                                     The Price of Liberty   6/15/2009
Open Carry as a Political Act                                                The Price of Liberty    8/24/2009
More Necessary Noise                                                         The Price of Liberty   9/17/2009
'Lock & Load': Music for Our Times                                       The Price of Liberty    9/31/2009
The Parable of the Taxman                                                 The Price of Liberty  10/28/2009
« Last Edit: October 04, 2009, 06:01:29 pm by Hunter »
Logged
from an undisclosed secure location far, far outside Ohio

Hunter's Seventieth Rule: The Internet needs a "three strikes and you're out" rule. Of the gene pool, I mean.

Hunter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1438
    • Hunter at TPoL
Re: The collected crimes of the Hunter
« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2009, 09:25:06 am »

I do not believe the following was ever published, which Cathy swears was an oversight or something. The date on the file is 3/3/1998, no idea if that is really the date of composition or not. For those who are unaware, Peter McWilliams was judicially murdered by the Honorable George H. King on June 14, 2000. No charges were ever filed for this horrendous crime. You can read a somewhat more balanced account of the whole affair at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_McWilliams

---
Cathy,

Since you folks won't let me pay you any other way and this bothers my anarchist soul, I'm going to inflict a submission on you for the Libertarian Enterprise. If I guessed wrong about who to send it to; please forward. It isn't exactly great material, but might contain a thought or two worth publishing; I dunno. Feel free to edit to fit, title as you please, or ask for changes; I ain't proud.

Jeffrey L Jordan

*********************************************************************

     When even one American - who has done nothing wrong - is forced
     by fear to shut his mind and close his mouth, then all
     Americans are in peril.
                         -- Harry S. Truman

Old Harry may not have exactly been a paragon of libertarian thought, but on that count at least I agree with him. Continued abuses by the rapacious statists controlling the Federal government have been driving home the point all too clearly for quite a spell. But the blatant attempt to silence the prolific and persuasive Peter McWilliams marks a new and truly perilous phase in the escalating encroachment.

Unlike the Second Amendment rights so cherished by many of us "freedom activists" (or "Right Wing Conspiracy Nuts <tm>", as Hillary would have it), the First Amendment freedom of the press has the full (apparent) support of both the legal apparatus and the mainstream media. The truth, of course, is a bit more complex, but it can be argued fairly successfully that freedom of speech is one of the few provisions of the Bill of Rights which still has robust protection.

Several cases with First Amendment dimensions have slipped through the cracks, of course. My recollection is that at least some of the Viper Team argued for First Amendment protection; the Freemen were trying to tell the country SOMETHING as far as I have ever figured out; the whole James D Bell debacle SHOULD have been an open and shut free speech case; and I am sure each of you can provide other examples. There are a depressing number of them, growing by leaps and bounds every day.

But the Peter McWilliams case is vastly different than anything which has happened previously, for two reasons. First, unlike nearly all the previous cases, McWilliams cannot by any stretch of even a fevered Federal imagination be portrayed as advocating or preparing for violence. Even if you accept events at face value he is being prosecuted simply for his use and advocacy of medicinal marijauna. If, of course, you choose to believe that his meticulously researched book "It Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do..." has never been noticed by the federales, or that the DEA was blissfully unaware of his pointed critiques.


But far more frightening in its implications is that for the first time someone of national prominence is being targetted. Peter McWilliams is perhaps not a household name, though a surprising cross-section of the people have read one or another of his works. But he is quite well known in precisely the circles most critical of Federal abuses, a fact which was clearly on the minds of the agents who searched his home.

McWilliams' account in Medical Marijauna Magazine ("Its Four in the Morning, the End of December" at http://www.mcwilliams.com/rape.htm) portrays an almost surreal raid, in which the DEA politely pointed out to him that he was never "roughed up" - and asked him to point this out to his eventual readers. The Special Agent in charge of executing the unseen warrant made the remarkable observation that "the DEA has a reputation for busting into people's homes, physically abusing them, and destroying property...", and reminded McWilliams "on more than one occasion" such was not the case on THIS raid.

Why were these DEA minions so worried about offending someone they clearly considered a criminal? They were not shy about claiming his possessions as either "evidence" for unspecified crimes or simply seizing them for the by now familiar asset forfeiture boondoggle. The whole affair seems to have been a pre-emptive strike to prevent the publication of his nearly-completed book "A Question of Compassion - An AIDS Cancer Patient Explores Medical Marijauna", and a counter-attack for an article critical of the DEA published 17 days before in "Daily Variety". But why the sudden atypical concern for the reaction of those hearing about this latest escapade in the War on (Some) Drugs?

Any analysis is neccessarily speculative, and I for one am not going to claim to be able to fathom the cesspool which passes for a brain  among drug warriors. But I think a pretty clear-cut case can be made for this being a challenge. Peter McWilliams was vulnerable enough to be a clear cut felon by their lights, yet clearly innocent in the eyes of the "vast right wing conspiracy <tm>".

Medical marijuana is (ironically) a hot button issue for this administration. What better way to both drive home their resolve AND test the limits of allowable abuse than to pick off a prominent and prolific writer whose ideas must give the control freaks nightmares? The motive seems crystal clear to me, as does the importance of a dynamic and outraged response.

When the dreaded knock in the middle of the night shattered his peaceful life, Peter McWilliams unwillingly became the point man for hundreds of other voices crying out for liberty. If he is successfully silenced, I predict that a systematic campaign to criminalize other effective and prominent dissenters will quickly follow. If you don't want to see your favorite libertarian/conservative/whatever writer/philosopher/webmaster/whatever cheerfully put away by the kinder, gentler, more sinister & smarter Federal goon squad, it is high time to raise hell in any way you are comfortable doing. Otherwise, you might want to start making preparations to "mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honour." Its later than you think.
Logged
from an undisclosed secure location far, far outside Ohio

Hunter's Seventieth Rule: The Internet needs a "three strikes and you're out" rule. Of the gene pool, I mean.

Hunter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1438
    • Hunter at TPoL
Re: The collected crimes of the Hunter
« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2009, 09:54:28 am »

This was my first published piece so far as you snarky libertarians are concerned. That is, of course, ignoring my full time part time status as a reporter for the Chanute Tribune while I was in high school from 1977-1979. I covered mostly sports, but managed to break out into some other departments once or twice. So far as I know no electronic versions of any of those exist. My grandma presented me with a scrapbook kind of as a surprise at one point (I didn't know it then, but she had been told by her doctors that her diagnosis was terminal), and part of what was in it was every single article with my by line that the paper had ever published. She was quite proud she'd saved them all, and chagrined when I told her that she'd missed the bulk of my work, since "staff" writing didn't get a byline. <laugh>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 59, November 15, 1999
Remembrance Day


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Guns For Tots
by "Hunter" Jordan
hunter@vader.com

Exclusive to TLE

The media is busy splashing the television screens and newspaper front pages with more images depicting the exploits of yet another maniac shooting up a school, this time a Jewish day-care center in Los Angeles. It is rather telling that the image which nearly all the mediacrats have been choosing to repeat ad nauseam shows a line of children with interspersed police officers fleeing the scene. Whether they realize it or not, that clip continually bombarding the consciousness of a horrified nation reveals quite clearly just how ineffectual the centralised governmental systems are in dealing with these sorts of incidents.

Despite the vaunted "100,000 additional police officers" Clinton keeps telling us he put on the street (of which only a fraction seem to have ever actually materialised), the administration of this second US President ever to be impeached seems to be interested in only one solution: legislation to further infringe the inalienable rights of peaceful, law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. Clinton and the politicians of like mind refer to this as "gun control", and wring their hands as they cry "if it saves one child...." while they propose this as their one size fits all final solution.

It is worth exploring another measure that has been conclusively shown to save far more than one child in a much more dangerous environment than we face in these United States. It is a measure so controversial that mere mention will engender fierce debate, but so important that the issues it raises will illuminate many other aspects of freedom whether or not it is ever adopted. America should look to Israel and study its use of volunteer armed civilians to guard their schools. The probable effectiveness is further underlined by press reports that the shooter in this latest outrage shied away from three other targets where he found security was too tight.

The modern state of Israel has faced vicious terrorist attack almost since its inception. Unlike the hopefully random irrational acts that have been making the headlines in the past two years, the Israelis during the 1970's faced organized, planned assaults on schools. The worst of these atrocities took place at Maalot in May of 1974, where 25 died and another 66 were wounded when Israeli special forces stormed a school where 3 gunmen were holding 100 children and their teachers hostage.

This incident marked the beginning of a fierce debate about guns and self defence in Israel. Many of the same arguments raised by the victim disarmament lobby in the United States were waved hysterically about, but fortunately for the children of Israel wiser heads prevailed.

In an interview with Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (available at http://web.archive.org/web/20071011221110/http://jpfo.org/school.htm), Dr David T. Schiller, counter-terrorism consultant, current editor of the largest gun magazine in Europe, and in 1973 a member of the IDF and resident of a kibbutz in Israel, recounts that "all the reservists on the settlements were issued their personal weapons, and whoever had a clean track record could get a concealed weapons permit."


"Teachers and kindergarten nurses now started to carry guns, schools were protected by parents (and often grandpas) guarding them in voluntary shifts. No school group went on a hike or trip without armed guards. The Police involved the citizens in a voluntary civil guard project "Mishmar Esrachi", which even had its own sniper teams."

And what was the reaction to this "wild west" solution? As Dr. Schiller relates "When the message got around to the PLO groups and a couple infiltration attempts failed, the attacks against schools ceased. Too much of a risk here: Terrorists and other evildoers don't like risks."

A similar solution could easily be implemented in this country, with or (from a libertarian standpoint preferably) without the participation of the government. Merely proposing this solution gives many benefits, irregardless of its eventual adoption. It presents an obvious, positive contribution by gun owners that will resonate quite strongly with the public. Showing an effective, vital role for firearms in the hands of ordinary citizens would go far toward defusing the tired "there is no role for guns in a modern civilised society" canard so often trotted out by the hoplophobic.

The debate over the merits of the concept offer many opportunities to showcase the true goals of the "gun control" lobby. Of late they have not been shy about admitting their ultimate prize - the total disarming of the American populace. If widespread support for something as obviously beneficial as protecting schoolchildren can be generated, it could easily become political suicide to openly support such measures. It is a practical rather than a philosophical means to gain support for the right to keep and bear arms.

America has a massive pool of well-trained and well-equipped civilians available to implement such a program. You need only look at the numbers of former military personnel, firearms enthusiasts, and concealed carry permit holders - literally millions of each.

Yes, there are many legal and practical barriers to bringing this idea to America. However, careful consideration will show that many of the problems can with planning be turned into an excellent platform to demonstrate the advantages of an armed population.

Besides, it is high time that the gun owners of this country stop acting like they have something to hide. This is a golden opportunity to step forward and offer a positive solution rather than just reaching for the phone and checkbook to fight off yet another "gun control" scheme with yet another compromise yielding yet more of our "inalienable" right.

For far too long gun owners in America have been crouched in a defensive posture, letting the opposition define them in the eyes of the public. It is an oft quoted adage that the best defence is a good offence. Defensive shooters know that studies by Kleck and others have actually proven this to be true. The posture of defensive compromise promoted by the NRA has been proven over and over to be a failure. This is an issue that can demonstrate to the public many of the benefits of an armed society while providing an excellent platform to demolish the lies of the gun grabbers.

The cries of outrage from the very same politicians and media figures pushing their program of civilian disarmament will be the first major obstacle. But hardly insurmountable, and as noted above the resulting debate would be highly instructive to the public. The earnest, motivated volunteers who are going to step forward in response to a plea for guards are going to include a lot of parents. They are not going to be willing to take no for an answer from school administrators, police officials, and politicians who have demonstrated time and again that they have nothing as effective to offer. Nor should they, for it is their children at risk.

Initial implementation would of course be considerably easier in areas that have a strong tradition of firearms ownership and hunting. It would not be surprising to learn that there are already programs like this in operation already in some of those areas. But careful tailoring of the concept can help highlight some of the hypocrisies and dangers of the "gun control" lobby whether a volunteer civilian guards program is ever enacted or not. People desperately want to do SOMETHING to stop these incidents, and given an outlet like this the biggest problem might be handling the massive numbers of volunteers, and separating the wheat from the chaff.

The objections of police departments can be easily finessed by asking them to participate by helping screen and brief the volunteers. Extensive safety training has to be an absolute requirement (which fortunately any serious shooter can already demonstrate). All the volunteers need to be briefed on the legal circumstances in which they may use deadly force, if possible in cooperation with the local district attorney's office. The school authorities need to be involved, for both practical and political reasons.

The media is almost certain to try to portray the people presenting this idea as "gun nuts", but again, this can be turned into an opportunity rather than a problem. Simply find a concerned mother both familiar with shooting and with public speaking, and make her the spokesman who presents the idea. Play the situation right and you can make the media circus do half the work for you.

Another issue certain to be raised is the level of training required to confront determined killers. Police opponents are bound to expound on the dangers involved. But there is a devastatingly simple answer to such objections - ANY adult with ANY firearm and ANY level of training has a far better chance than an unarmed child.

While I have mixed feelings about the "concealed carry permits" being issued by the majority of states,they DO provide a pool of "government certified" individuals to defuse this issue. This advantage should be turned ruthlessly against the gun-grabbers. There is pretty clear evidence that the CCW movement has been co-opted as a means to identify and "corral" those Americans bold enough to actually EXERCISE their right to keep and bear arms. That would make turning the tables so much the sweeter.

There are many more objections that can be raised, but from the individualist standpoint perhaps the strongest issue is whether the public schools which function increasingly as government indoctrination camps are worth protecting. Golda Meir remarked during the Maalot incident that "one does not make politics on the backs of one's children". It is really too bad she is no longer around to explain that to the statists of America. Israel was wise enough to realise that the only viable defense against the acts of vicious madmen was the armed vigilance of ordinary caring citizens. For the sake of the children, lets hope that Americans can match their wisdom and courage.


Hunter is a western farm-boy who went east to find his fortune years ago. What he found instead was a pack of damn-fool statists. He's been trying to lose them ever since. He splits his time these days between writing, cutting wood, and shooting.

« Last Edit: August 26, 2009, 08:50:18 pm by Hunter »
Logged
from an undisclosed secure location far, far outside Ohio

Hunter's Seventieth Rule: The Internet needs a "three strikes and you're out" rule. Of the gene pool, I mean.

Hunter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1438
    • Hunter at TPoL
Re: The collected crimes of the Hunter
« Reply #4 on: August 26, 2009, 10:37:28 am »

This was apparently my first article for Sierra Times. I don't remember now how I came to write for them, maybe MamaLiberty does. She's to blame for putting one of my "Hunter's Rules" at the bottom of each article. Fair enough, I suppose, since I've used them for email sigs for years. She is also one of three living humans trusted with a complete copy. I have cover art and everything to publish the first volume, just haven't got around to doing the deed.

I do remember where this article came from. At the time, I and several friends who shall remain nameless were arguing the merits of the PT or expatriate options. One of them opined that freedom lovers would be way ahead to leave America, and this was my response.

I was, as it happens, beaten up pretty severely about this article in the arbitration hearing to get my job back from Verizon. They actually hired Dr Jessica Stern, who'd been a member of Clinton's National Security Council staff and is a recognized expert on terrorism accoring to the statists. She testified that in her expert opinion, anyone professing libertarian beliefs was at least potentially a terrorist, citing the James D Bell case (which she's written about) as precedent, and using this article to "prove" my own anti-government feelings.

The union's lawyer tore her apart. First, he got her to admit she liked and admired Dr David Brudnoy, a long-time Boston radio personality who'd died just recently. She fell right into that trap - apparently she'd never listened to his program (I did), just met him at parties and academia, and didn't know that he was an ardent libertarian, and said so frequently - and in his biography. Then he walked her through all her problems with things I said in this article about prepositioned caches and resistance and whatnot - then hammered her with the conclusion in the last three paragraphs - written years before. She left the hearing with her tail between her legs. I had read a couple of her books BEFORE she tried to help destroy my life, and already thought she was an idiot. Nothing I saw that day changed my opinon. With just a little luck she's investigating Mental Militia, and will see this. Hiya babe, you're still a dope.



Sierra Times

Stand and Deliver

by The Hunter 11.01.00

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lately I'm beginning to think that a lot of patriots and libertarians have been watching too much Monty Python. "Run Away!" seems to have become the battle cry. From individuals who are wrapped up in plans to escape to a foreign country to "build a refuge" to worthy groups like Gunowners of America counseling against in your face tactics; even the craven "patriotic" Republicans,  nobody seems to want to take the bull by the horns. To my mind,  they're forgetting everything they ever knew about school yard bullies, a species to which the tyrant wannabes in the federal government bear a quite remarkable resemblance.

Just like the young thug trying to steal your lunch money, running away and attempting to hide from the federal goons is not the answer. Sooner or later they will stretch out their greedy hands and attempt to take and control whatever haven you find (or create), for such is their nature. The American public controls a vast percentage of the world's small arms; two fifths according to the United Nations (though I've seen higher estimates in other sources). The people who own those firearms often have a fairly clear understanding of the concept of freedom, and even if they don't are often open to the concepts. Where, pray tell, are you going to find a situation better for taking a stand?

The ocean you say? Go watch "Titanic" to remind yourself that ships can sink. Then get hold of a copy of "Janes Fighting Ships" and look over the section on the US Navy. There are press reports making it clear that "drug interdiction" actions are taking place far beyond territorial waters. Talk to some of the people who are ALREADY living aboard about their run-ins with the Coast Guard. There are an AWFUL lot of problems with this solution. Not least that you're never going to get more than a handful of people who are interested in doing it.

And even if you get enough to fill five or six ships the size of "Freedom City", so what? That gives you maybe 200,000 people forming your "free" nation. Well above the self-sustaining threshold on a societal level. But even IF all of them are willing to bear arms in the defense of your flotilla, one carrier air wing and an associated Marine Expeditionary Force could wipe them off the map any time whatever successor to Clinton needs a diversion from HIS sexual peccadilloes. Or a couple of dozen Tomahawks, a few sorties by long range bombers... you get the picture.

Don't think they'd bother? Remember the aspirin factory? I'll put it this way. If any such scheme is successful, it would be the biggest threat on the face of the planet to the statists. They might take a few years to notice and figure that out, but sooner or later they would. You're going to hide, you say? Just how do you propose doing that? Spread people out in small boats? Have you ever been out in a small boat on the ocean in CALM weather? Better yet, in a storm? There are very few hardy souls who enjoy that sort of thing. And if your ships are big enough to be stable platforms for living, they are VERY easy to find. The assorted navies of the world do that for a living. Even they can't easily hide from each other.

Another rosy plan I've heard more than once involves becoming an expatriate to lay the groundwork for cross-border refuges to be used by freedom fighters on some ill-defined future day. There are entire web sites dedicated to the difficulties of the expatriate or "PT" life. But even before you run afoul of those practical impediments to your noble plan, one should look at some of the reasons the American situation is vastly different from the Korean communists falling back into China to escape McArthur, or the Viet Cong using Laos and Cambodia as refuges.

For starters, we have very little in common socially with either Canada or Mexico. Or rather, the freedom-loving elements of America have little in common. The socialist, statist elements we're opposing are quite cozy with both countries, often citing them as glowing examples of what America should be. I've been to both, and all I can say is if I wanted to live like that I'd have moved there already.

Since I've spent the past 20 years or so living within a few hours drive of Canada, my experience mainly speaks to that situation. But I'm pretty sure from what I know of Mexico that neither one of them is going to be at all excited about American rebels seeking refuge in their territory.

From my interactions with Canadians over the years, I'd say most of them would be horrified at the very notion of resisting a "legitimately elected government". Most of them just don't have the philosophical background. They seem frankly mystified by the American system and ESPECIALLY by our insistence on individual rights. Now I suppose its possible that the several dozen Canadians I've known from all parts are atypical, but that seems to match with others I've heard, read, and seen in the media. All it takes is one local reluctantly turning in those nice folks from America, and you're screwed. Or more accurately, dead. Best case you get pointedly uninvited by the host government, worst case you get pointedly perforated by a cross-border raid.

Notice I haven't said anything about their government, which I figure you can immediately write off as a source of support. Its *possible* to operate in a useful fashion in the territory of a nation that doesn't approve of what you're doing. But then, what have you really gained? Even then, you HAVE to have the support of the people, at least, for any cross-border shenanigans to be at least tacitly ignored. There are parts of the northern border that I suppose are deserted enough on both sides to get away with quite a bit... but that also says any people who ARE moving through there are going to be pretty obvious to just about any surveillance attempts.

Our neighbors to the south present an even tougher situation. The border is already fairly heavily patrolled, though of course both illegal immigrants and the drug trade show that its possible to move significant material across the border. Language is much more of a potential barrier in Mexico. The culture does have more of a revolutionary tradition, and at best rather mixed feelings about the colossus to the north. There are definitely possibilities there, probably better ones than Canada, but its going to be dangerous, delicate work at best.

I'm sure you're by now thinking of Costa Rica, or any of the other countries scattered around the world that actually show more respect for many freedoms than these United States do any more. I am unconvinced of the utility of moving significant assets overseas. All you're doing is removing people and material from the theatre of operations, even if you CAN find a place willing to challenge the federal beast. Which I am rather dubious of in the first place. Most of the vaunted banking refuges of the Caribbean have been folding as soon as the DEA and State Department leaned on them. How do you think any of them are going to react when Billzebubba or his designated replacement sends in the Marines - or the bombers?

For the same effort and investment of time, resources, and people you can accomplish a lot more right here. The one slight possible use for an overseas refuge that I can see is a potential for funding. If of course you can get the funds IN to where they will do any good fast enough to make any difference. All the controls that the federals have been busily putting in place to make it difficult for the drug trade to move funds are going to work against you. Again, its quite apparent that with ingenuity and patience people are circumventing those laws every day. But of course there are problems to consider.

If your investments and stockpiles of material are large enough to be useful in a full scale civil conflict, they're going to be large enough to be noticed. As well as large enough to be what the Air Force refers to as "high value targets". Though if they're on top of their game, they'd wait for you to expend effort overcoming your next headache: transport. Funds, material, or people; they're all much more vulnerable in transit than sitting in some hypothetical overseas depot. All the assets in the world are useless if you have no way to apply them.

I haven't checked a map recently, but last I knew Mexico and Canada are the only two countries we share a land border with. (I don't THINK the Eastern Socialist Worker's Republic is listed as a separate country yet.) How many airlift capable aircraft do you have available? How many fighter wings to defend them against the no-doubt hostile Air Force? How many sea lift transports can you field? Where's your navy? Any significant flow of men and material from these hypothetical friendly bases is going to of necessity require land access.

Yes, material CAN be smuggled in via sea and air, but it requires a lot more capital to get the pipeline flowing. The VC supplied entire divisions over the Ho Chi Minh trail, in some places by the simple expedient of loading material into packs and carrying it in on foot. You can do that with a gunny sack if you're determined enough. I suppose its POSSIBLE to run a supply chain across the Caribbean, say, with guys in inner tubes or something. But it seems to violate the K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Stupid) factor pretty badly to my way of thinking.

And let's not hear about your clever schemes to hide your whole operation from both the host country and our hypothetical Tyrannical States of America. Its not exactly easy to hide "freedom fighters" nor the material to equip said from either. They've had many years of practice on Arab terrorists, the IRA, and the drug trade. You can bet the bully boys are just itching to institute all sorts of restrictions to make the sort of operating tactics the IRA and the Arab cells have used to evade capture for years useless. It doesn't take much study of the tactics used by the professional terrorists to reveal that they COUNT on being able to move about more or less with impunity in a "free" society. The "host" countries that provide refuge, funding, and cover for their operations are rather unlikely to do the same for a movement truly dedicated to restoring liberty here, even if you were dumb enough to make that sort of bargain with the devil.

There is a fascinating book about the effort to finance and equip the fledgling state of Israel called "The Pledge", by Leonard Slater. Its currently out of print, but scheduled to be reprinted this spring (see Amazon.com) The history revealed in its pages is both inspiring and daunting for anyone contemplating something similar in any future struggle in these United States. The men and women who made the modern state of Israel possible were operating in a country where a LOT of the population was sympathetic. They had major connections both politically and in law enforcement - and some of them STILL ended up being caught and jailed. They also had an extensive network of millionaires bankrolling the operation, a whole bunch of dedicated lawyers scheming to figure out every angle, and a huge pool of freedom-loving idealistic recently battle-hardened talent to draw upon. Probably other advantages I'm forgetting - when you line up all of the above, I'll be interested, until then my assessment is that the best bet is to work on the ground HERE. Where I know the language, understand the culture, already have significant contacts of varying degrees of usefulness, have pre deployed material in multiple locations, and there's already a fairly strong (and growing) opposition in place.

I'm not even going to go into the problems with a space exodus. Yes, it could be done. But it won't be easy, and the hard parts are not technological. The current system has been ACTIVELY working against private space efforts for 30 years. All the comments above (suitably modified) apply in spades. I could give you reams of info about this particular option; I came into freedom activism after spending fruitless years as a space activist. Vic Koman has already covered this ground far better than I can in his novel "Kings of the High Frontier". I strongly urge you to read it if you think escaping to space is the answer.

It is my belief that all these pipe-dreams are distracting from the real, ongoing struggle that is by no means a foregone conclusion. Despite the claims of many libertarians and patriots that "the system is broken beyond repair", the forces of freedom keep winning battles. The Communications Decency Act, the "Know Your Customer" rules, ending the advertising relationship between Rosie O'Donnell and K-Mart, forcing Citibank to rescind its policy of refusing accounts to the firearms industry, the ongoing destruction of Smith & Wesson after their craven appeasement - the list is endless. If some of the talent, creativity, and energy that is being poured into "dropping out" or "escaping" or "unsubscribing" were added to the forces that have already achieved those victories, what else might be accomplished? It might well turn out that the awful option of a "second American revolution" might never need be more than a credible deterrent.

I believe it would be irresponsible and immoral to throw away any chance at avoiding civil conflict. Ignoring the sheer raw pain and suffering, the ultimate outcome is by no means certain. Or rather I'm sure the federal system would be destroyed in the process, but I am unclear what would replace it. Most likely a rather nasty authoritarian system of some sort, that would turn the conflict outward and engulf a good portion of the world in a major war, if things follow the usual pattern.

I think it would require a quite remarkable set of circumstances for events to produce anything better than the constitutional federal republic we're SUPPOSED to have. Though I suppose anything is possible. That is really the one reason I see to work on preparing overseas havens. But I also doubt very much that refugees from a disintegrating America are going to be all that popular much of anywhere at the rate the Clintonistas are making enemies.

Its about time people stopped looking for some sort of a magic, peaceful solution and face reality. I won't argue that _individuals_ might be able to forge _relative_ freedom somewhere in the world no matter how bad things get. But if the most powerful society (economically and militarily at least) on the planet continues its slide into abject socialism, with the active encouragement and collusion of most of the other powerful nations, NO PLACE ON EARTH OR ABOVE IT WILL ESCAPE THE REACH OF STATISM. Win, lose, or draw the real battle is going to be right here. The wealth, weapons, know how, and philosophical underpinnings are all here for freedom to win the fight. The only question is whether enough people who understand the stakes stay the course or not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hunter's Eleventy-Third Rule: Respect often follows quoting Ben Franklin, which I suspect would amuse the old coot.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2009, 08:49:13 pm by Hunter »
Logged
from an undisclosed secure location far, far outside Ohio

Hunter's Seventieth Rule: The Internet needs a "three strikes and you're out" rule. Of the gene pool, I mean.

Hunter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1438
    • Hunter at TPoL
Re: The collected crimes of the Hunter
« Reply #5 on: August 26, 2009, 12:58:20 pm »

I've caught a lot of heat over this one. It was written in response to the "hanging chad" election, offering my own inimitable solution to the mess.

I was never really a W supporter, I always just thought he was the lesser of two evils, by a small fraction. Which may be still evil, but is also still lesser. I note in passing that, while the Busheviks did a lot of damage, they also bought us 8 more years to get ready that I at least think were well spent. Talk to me again in a hundred years. Anyway, people have to remember that I am not writing for the libertarian and anarchist true believers, but for those we're trying to convince, few of whom have yet figured out how rigged against freedom the system really is. Oh yeah, and I am gonna take this opportunity to finally edit in the tumbleweed... how I could possibly publish this scene and forget the tumbleweed I'll never know. I'll add it in blue for the purists who want to see how it was originally published.

There's an amusing backstory here, too. I have some reason to believe that Bush may have seen this while he was a candidate. The Bush campaign sure was interested in me, anyway. I got a call or two from the campaign HQ in Austin, one right before one of the debates, specifically asking me to watch it for a pro-gun statement, that they thought I was gonna like.  It occured to me right after he left office I should have tried to contact him for a pardon, just for the fun of it. Oh well, sometimes I am a bit slow.


Sierra Times

High Noon

by The Hunter 11.11.00


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote
 
The noonday sun beats down on a dusty street in a small western town that stands silent and achingly familiar to us all on the lonely rolling prairie. All the locals have retreated inside with their women and children. The wind moans softly as little dancing curls of dust skip across the silent stretch of main street. A twitch of lace curtains betrays one nervous watcher. From behind other windows come the determined clicks of rifles being loaded, and a mumur of angry voices.
 
This day has been coming for almost ten years. Half the town backs one man, and half the other. Being sensible people they put their faith in the ballot box. But the count has come out dead even, and men shouted and accused each other of cheating. There's nothing for it now but to set aside the civilized trappings and settle the feud with steel and lead. All that both sides are waiting on is the arrival of the prodigal son and his men.

A clatter of hoofbeats in the distance, and the townsmen snatch quick kisses that may be their last. But only one man arrives in a swirls of dust, and swings out of his saddle onto the street with a jingle of spurs. His boldness makes his supporters hesitate - where are his men? And his enemies mill suspiciously at the far end of the street - is this an ambush? Each determined step down the middle of that lonely road brings him closer to his indecisive foes. The people stare out at the drama, their schemes and weapons for the moment forgotten. Finally he stops in the center of town. A tumbleweed rolls between them forlornly as the two men face each other.

"This has gone far enough, Al," drawls the tall Texan. "Its me y'all want. Theahs no need ta tear the whole town apart to get what yer afta. Git out heah and settle this; man.ta man."


All right, so my script for the scene where marshal Bush's blacksheep boy Dubya redeems himself by facing down the gang Lyin' Al inherited from Slick Willie needs work. Hopefully I'll get it all sorted out by the time Hollywood calls. Like all the rest of you I've been watching this high drama unfold for the past couple of days. I've decided that there's almost no chance of a peaceful resolution; its either going to drag on for years in the courts, or degenerate into civil war. To borrow a line from a better man than I, "that's mighty rough territory you're ridin' into there, pilgrim."

There's only one way to avoid trouble. Bush is man enough, and Texan enough, to know the right thing to do. He has to call Lyin' Al out. Its high time to revive an old custom of American politics, practiced honorably and enthusiastically by the Founders. The only way to settle this clash of cultures is a duel of honor, American style. Two men, alone, in the street, at high noon. The Code of the West expects nothing less.

Sure, go ahead, laugh, you city-slickers. Then imagine for a moment the reaction of the media. They will howl in outrage at the barbarous suggestion. Until they start thinking about the ratings. Then they'll fall over themselves to air the event. The country ought to charge them for the privilege, since the whole mess is in good part their doing. We can put the inflated results of the bidding war into the treasury to finance the government for a while after we abolish the income tax and before we can finish dismantling all the unconstitutional parts, but I'm puttting the cart ahead of the horse here.

Lyin' Al's got nothing to lose - he's made it clear that nothing is more important to him than the Presidency. I can't see GW backing down after coming this far. His momma didn't raise him that way, for one thing. Besides, its a brilliant move that would vindicate his whole stance that its the individual that matters, not the government. He said he was in favor of self-defense, nows the time to stand up and prove it. There has certainly been sufficient offense given, both to him and to the country.

Both the pro- and anti- gun forces can have a field day with the notion. I can see it now... the NRA can supply two perfect matched vintage Colt single action army revolvers. HCI and the MMM can supply lots of moaning and rhetoric about how evil all this is. GOA and all the others can sensibly point out that a firearm is the great equalizer, and we've heard for years that they want equality, now haven't we?

Whatever the outcome of this pivotal duel, I'm hoping it will lead to a revival of the custom among the movers and shakers. With just a little luck we can convince the chattering classes that this is the only REAL way to prove their dedication to their assorted causes. Think of the match ups! Neal Knox calls out Sarah Brady. (Nobody in the current NRA leadership would be so radical, of course.) Think of it; Rosie O'Donnell called out by Tom Selleck. I'm claiming the concession on the line to duel Hillary, Chuck Schumer, and Diane Feinstein as my modest reward for this brainstorm. Hey, anybody who REALLY deplores the violence can just back down and refuse to participate - and concede the challenged point of honor, of course. I thought they said they were pro choice?

Yes, after a lot of serious thought, I've realised there is only one civilized way to settle this. Trial by combat. Let Heaven decide, since both men claim so loudly to be guided by Providence. Lets see what they're really made of. This tongue-tied cowboy who God gave jet-jockey reflexes, and the eastern sharpie he granted a devious mind and a lying tongue.... See you on Main Street; tomorrow, when the clock strikes.... high noon. Its the Cooooode of the West....



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hunter's Seventy Seventh Rule: The measure of the menace of a man is not what hardware he carries, but what ideas he believes. 
« Last Edit: August 26, 2009, 08:48:36 pm by Hunter »
Logged
from an undisclosed secure location far, far outside Ohio

Hunter's Seventieth Rule: The Internet needs a "three strikes and you're out" rule. Of the gene pool, I mean.

Undefined

  • Guest
Re: The collected crimes of the Hunter
« Reply #6 on: August 26, 2009, 04:32:37 pm »


Quality stuff, Hunter. Got a few young friends I'm working on. These are excellent think pieces. :)
Logged

Hunter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1438
    • Hunter at TPoL
Re: The collected crimes of the Hunter
« Reply #7 on: August 26, 2009, 04:54:40 pm »

Glad you liked 'em. Some of the later ones are going to take some updating to correct or replace the stale links, but I figure that will help MamaLiberty out if she decides to republish.
Logged
from an undisclosed secure location far, far outside Ohio

Hunter's Seventieth Rule: The Internet needs a "three strikes and you're out" rule. Of the gene pool, I mean.

Hunter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1438
    • Hunter at TPoL
Re: The collected crimes of the Hunter
« Reply #8 on: August 26, 2009, 05:37:18 pm »

About the only "hard news" piece I've done in years. There were rallies all over the country by assorted groups, protesting that Al Gore should win, mainly. I went down and attended one in Boston to see what was going on. Wearing body armor, I might add. Those people are nuts. Got more interesting than I expected. There were pictures that went with this one, which I don't see any way to post here. I checked the Wayback Machine, and it doesn't appear to have captured this article.

Sierra Times

In JJ Johnson's article "A Nation Divided: Choosing Sides" we told you where the liberal anti-election activists would be protesting and suggested that you meet them there to counter-protest. We've since learned that at least one demonstration either failed to take place at all or was thwarted by local authorities since it was planned to take place on private property - the new LDS park in Salt Lake City, Utah. Reports from other demonstrations indicate minimal turnout in some places and more than several hundred participants at others. We've also had good news of counter-demonstrators showing up at many locations. One of our readers attended a protest in Boston and wrote about what he observed. With the assistance of a friend, he took video and was kind enough to send us these still pictures. Thanks Hunter, and thanks to your friend. We hope to see and hear of more people getting active and involved in what is going on in our country right now. If you do, send your reports and pictures to us. This is your news service.

Here is what The Hunter observed in Boston:

When the rally started at 1 PM there were few enough of them that I was actually able to count them; around 85. Their numbers increased somewhat by the time most of these pictures were taken. I'd estimate at their peak that there were at most 250. Hard to tell how many of those were actually there for the rally, as they were protesting across from the reviewing stand for a Veteran's Day parade.

Some of the people mixed in with them were clearly not there for the protest from the comments they were making. I observed reporters from both Boston papers and two camera crews - you can see the camerawoman from WBZ in the corner of one of my shots.

Several of the pics show the commander of the American Legion Department of Massachusetts coming over and confronting them. He instructed the demonstrators in no uncertain terms that they were to remain quiet and not chant "Gore got More" and other inanities once the parade began. He told them that they were a disgrace to the flag, but that their right to be stupid was what he fought in two wars and was wounded for. He also promised them that as a result of their actions he was going to seek to have Al Gore expelled from the American Legion. Fine fellow if you ask me, he deserves kudos.

 

They gave him a bit of backtalk, but they did remain quiet when the parade started.


Are you going to be at the next demonstration in your area? If so, we'd love to publish your report, and if you can send pictures, that's even better.

Here's one website where you can keep track of their demonstrations: www.geocities.com/countercoup/

Send us your news article and/or photos at news@sierratimes.com
« Last Edit: August 26, 2009, 08:47:57 pm by Hunter »
Logged
from an undisclosed secure location far, far outside Ohio

Hunter's Seventieth Rule: The Internet needs a "three strikes and you're out" rule. Of the gene pool, I mean.

Hunter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1438
    • Hunter at TPoL
Re: The collected crimes of the Hunter
« Reply #9 on: August 26, 2009, 05:46:05 pm »

This has always been one of my favorites. Draws heavily on the ideas of L Neil Smith, so heavily I secured permission from him before submitting this. The ideas herein I think would serve the LP and/or gunnies well in the upcoming midterms, not that I expect them to listen to me. Besides, I am dubious enough of the wisdom of bothering to pursue electoral politics at this point I am not planning on going out of my way to remind them of it.

Sierra Times

Gun Rights - The 5% Solution

by The Hunter 11.17.00

I admit it, I am a one issue voter. Everything is judged on how it is going to affect my gun rights. As I write this, it is still unclear who the next president will be. A lot of patriots, libertarians, and individualists seem to be of the rather cynical opinion that it really does not matter. We have all heard what is at stake, but many argue that even if the republicans end up with shaky control of both houses of congress and the presidency, that they will do little if anything on gun rights.

It will not be easy, but I believe that a weak Bush administration coupled with thin republican majorities in Congress create an opportunity for freedom lovers. I think the time is right to push the gun rights issue hard, and I think we can win.

The secret is a preemptive strike. There is no question that the hoplophobes are going to push for more restrictions. So why wait to see what they do and fight each proposal in detail? It is time to gin up the gun rights groups, and from day one demand rollbacks.

The late Senator Everett Dirksen was fond of saying "When I feel the heat, I see the light." We know that when the letters and calls and emails start pouring in ("heat") republican politicians come around ("light"). It is time to get unreasonable and make them scramble to keep us happy. Any gun rights group that wrings its hands and refuses to get on board should be treated to a dose of the same medicine.

Many caution that even conservative republicans cannot be trusted. Let us lay all the cards on the table. If they backstab us, so what? The distinct minority of obedient gun owners will meekly turn in their guns, thereby becoming pitifully irrelevant. A few hotheads will try to shoot it out and become a rather graphic example to stiffen the resolve of those remaining. The rest of you will simply ignore the new restrictions without taking further action, in effect silently daring "Go ahead, make my day".

That puts the ball firmly in their court. It is not a particularly playable hand. Think of that grim situation - many of their most productive and law abiding citizens, armed to the teeth, far out numbering their security forces, now simmering on the edge of open defiance. Millions of them are capable of hitting an eighteen inch circle at a few hundred yards. An eighteen inch circle that quite handily covers the head and torso of a hypothetical human target. Not a comforting thought for the politicians who pushed through such legislation. Especially when the people responsible for his protection explain that if he insists on appearing in public, their safety can no longer be guaranteed.

But we need not ever get to the stage of pointing out these facts. It is, so far, a very theoretical threat. The possibility of armed resistance just does not feel real to any save a few paranoids deep down scared of everything in the world. In truth it is NOT very real -- yet. So far most gunnies seem to believe they can weather the storm, and have enough faith in the system to fight within it rather than literally.

A well founded belief, if you look at what has been achieved politically against overwhelming odds the past few years. Especially when you remember some of the spectacular results of economic boycotts, or even the THREAT of such actions.

In this environment, the threat of POLITICAL harm, as opposed to physical assault, is very real to politicians. Bush in particular has gotten contact from gun rights advocates explicitly saying "our support has a price, and we intend to collect". I am absolutely sure that sort of thing has been said, because *I* said it. I also know I am not the only one. Nor is the Bush campaign the only ones we have been leaning on. Keep up (or better yet increase) the pressure and you might see some amazing results.
 
Even with the uncertainties of the presidential outcome, we can begin pressuring them now. Offer support now in their hour of need, explicitly saying that this is their reward for their support of gun rights. Then remind them of it for four years while simultaneously building up a major threat to them from the free side. (Right and left not really applying here.) With Nader and the greens threatening the democrats from the other direction, it could get real interesting by 2004.

We need not count on gratitude to ensure our support is rewarded. For years now L Neil Smith has been advocating a devastating strategy that he calls "the five per cent solution". http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle1997/le970601-01.html

His original version was not limited to just gun rights, but narrowing the focus does not lower the impact. He suggested that we simply analyze the election returns. Identify any republicans who are both weak on guns and won their last election by five per cent or less. Either they agree to play ball, or we switch our support to their opponent. Preferably one with a better record on guns, but if he is bad in the first place you lose nothing. The situation we find ourselves in is tailor-made for his strategy to have maximum impact. The republicans cannot afford to lose a single seat.

Politicians whose last race was that close are weak. Gun owners can easily swing enough votes to deny them office. All we need do is pick off anti-gun republicans and replace them with pro-gun conservative democrats (or third party candidates). Do that two or three times and you can swing one house of congress away from the republicans as punishment. With careful choice of a few key races the republicans can be made to fear us as much or more than they fear the democrats and the press. There is not even much risk, assuming Bush becomes president. Just make sure the democrats do not gain enough votes to override a veto. The fact that gun rights are one issue on which democrats do not vote in lockstep just makes it easier.

Using this tactic, we hammer the republicans in congress for the next two years, saying "we got you this far, and we are going to abandon you unless you start delivering". Put them between a rock and a hard place. By the time another two years pass and we reach another presidential race, the republicans will be falling over themselves to support us. The NRA, has been doing some of this already, so getting them aboard is by no means a far-fetched notion.

You can multiply the effectiveness of your calls by starting with the gun-friendly politicians identified by NRA or GOA, and grouse to them about their weak-kneed colleagues. Playing carrot and stick with these guys is real easy. Utilize the gun-friendly to help you put pressure on the not-so-friendly.

Save the nasty letters for those you identify as weak both on guns and their chances of re-election. Make those contacts AFTER you have talked to the ones solidly in our corner. It never hurts to suggest that the wavering contact a gun-friendly colleague for further information. Put the pro-gun politicians to work. If you do not trust them, substitute one of the gun rights groups.

Hammer away relentlessly at each and every politician you can identify that meets these simple criteria. Best case he might see the light. Worst case, you give him a chance to get reacquainted with the private sector in the next election cycle.

---
Hunter's Seventy Seventh Rule: The measure of the menace of a man is not what hardware he carries, but what ideas he believes.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2009, 08:47:27 pm by Hunter »
Logged
from an undisclosed secure location far, far outside Ohio

Hunter's Seventieth Rule: The Internet needs a "three strikes and you're out" rule. Of the gene pool, I mean.

Hunter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1438
    • Hunter at TPoL
Re: The collected crimes of the Hunter
« Reply #10 on: August 26, 2009, 06:19:38 pm »

You can blame John Lankford for this one, bless him. I believe he is no longer with us, alas, so it does no harm now to reveal that he is the person I refer to in this one. It worked, too, after reading it he started emailing with me again. (laugh) Come to think of it, he also deserves credit for sparking the ideas in "High Noon". I'll have to scrounge around and see if I still have a copy of "EnviroWhack" anywhere, so I can show you the truly wonderful satire that MamaLiberty just refused to print and scolded the two of us for submitting. He was a good guy, too bad we lost him.

Anyway, this one was well researched, and the various notes deserve to be updated to links that don't have to use the Wayback Machine some day. The footnotes for this one are all collected at the end, with corrected links, to the Wayback Machine for now. I find it rather interesting that I can't find a copy of the UN Report that I cited anywhere else on the web now, though I didn't look THAT hard.




Sierra Times

Lessons

by The Hunter 05.04.01

The Second Amendment is not about sport shooting or hunting. It is about maintaining the possibility of an armed revolt or other armed action as a powerful deterrent against oppression. I was recently reminded how rare this understanding is even among active and aware believers in freedom. A long-time correspondent cut off contact with me seemingly over an off-hand observation that the sort of petty oppressions we read about in the news every day are exactly the sort of thing to drive a free people to that ultimate resort.

I believe quite firmly in both the theory of deterrence and the perilous risk of triggering that awful necessity risked by government’s increasing tyrannies. I suspect I am not alone in being more than a bit tired of regularly being accused of being a militia nut for holding these opinions and speaking out about them. Quite often the critiques come from people who should know better.

It is unequivocally clear what the framers had in mind when they wrote the "embarrassing Second Amendment", to borrow the famously descriptive phrase of noted legal scholar Sanford Levinson 1 . The ratification debates make the revolutionary generation's opinion on the matter crystal clear.

What the doubting thomases don't bother to consider before they recoil in horror is that the shooting has already started. So far it’s an abortion doctor here, an overzealous prosecutor there, or a crooked judge out yonder. And so far its just nutcases doing the shooting - or as some people have called them, the canaries. I sincerely hope we can keep it that way.

But if the oppression keeps up, you're not going to see a full-scale guerilla war modeled on the American Revolution as so many romantically assume. At least not initially. You're going to see an ever-increasing groundswell of those shots in the dark aimed at politicians and public figures who have pushed oppressive measures thus making themselves unpopular. I'd really rather not see it come to that, because once the killing starts, it seems to nearly always spiral out of control. Besides, a lot of these people earnestly believe they are doing good and necessary things. (Paving stones to the nether regions notwithstanding.) Feeding them 150 grains of lead doing 2000 feet/second doesn't defeat their ideas, and it might very well give them a new lease on life. The ideas, I mean; the recipients of that sort of argument tend to be a little too busy getting acquainted with the workin' side of grass to spare any time to continue political debates.

One common complaint raised by those wanting to distance themselves from the notion of the preventive power of armed civilian action is that too few will act should the necessity arise. Our wavering allies are missing the important point that it does not take a large percentage of the population to successfully change the course of history. The first American Revolution was actively supported by around 30% of the population by most accounts. Far less than that actually fought in the battles.

Depending on whose numbers you believe; there are currently 60 to 80 million gun owners in the United States 2 . Between them they own at least 40% of the world's supply of small arms 3. I'll wager that they own a good portion of the ammunition stocks, too. A frighteningly large percentage of those people are damn good with their guns by anyone's standards. Sure, an awful lot of those guns come out of the closet once a year to go put a couple of ducks or a deer in the freezer. But let's not discount just how few people it takes to seriously gum up the works. Even a minuscule percentage of 80 million comes to an awful lot of potential motivated foot soldiers. We have very clear evidence just how few it takes, too.

My favorite example is Northern Ireland. The IRA has plagued the United Kingdom for the better (or worse) part of a century. Without getting into the rather complex history, for most of its existence the IRA has had no more than a couple of thousand members 4. The best estimates I've seen indicate that since the end of the Irish civil war in the 1920’s they seldom had more than a few hundred combat effectives operationally deployed. Since the late 1960s after long and arduous efforts the IRA have managed to accumulate an estimated inventory of around 800 small arms, and lost many times that in attempts to smuggle them into the country 5. NRA figures show that there are 10,000 state associations and local clubs in the US 6. Thousands of them probably are larger and better equipped than the IRA.

Ireland suffered under very restrictive British rule for generations. Unlike America they don't have a long-standing tradition of marksmanship and sport shooting proudly handed down in families since the country’s beginning, nor do they have ranges and gun clubs to practice in. Nor is it possible to walk into a local gun store and buy some of the most sophisticated weapons in the world, or mail order top quality ammunition. Yet they managed to fight one of the best counter-terrorist organizations in the world very effectively for all that time. Even during periods the British government gave the security forces carte blanche, and eventually they forced a political settlement. If you don't like that example, there are dozens of others that are equally instructive. Any place where a bunch of ill-equipped people are giving a fairly modern military force a run for their money has lessons to teach. If you prefer fiction, start with John Ross' Unintended Consequences.

Anyone care to put money on whether the United States can muster a few thousand or so people dedicated enough to run a similar campaign here? Or just what they might accomplish with the vastly superior level of equipment and training at their disposal? That is a wager I would really rather not see tested if you don't mind. Events are far too likely to get very ugly for everyone if that sort of thing starts. Every lunatic with a score to settle against anyone or a grudge of some sort will come out of the woodwork and join the carnage. Care to take a side bet on just what the luddites and anti-capitalists who are ripping around various cities the past couple of days would start doing? Or the racists and fanatics of every creed, color, and religion just itching for an excuse? I just wish somebody would dope-slap the statists pushing their little power-trips down people's throats, then sit them down and explain all this to them while there's still time - for them, and for us.

Most of all, though, I wish that a lot of our allies (or at least enemies of our enemies) would stop undercutting the preventive power of the possibility by decrying loudly and wringing their hands every time somebody frankly discusses it. The surest way I can think of to ensure that the rather dire scenario I outlined above happens is to keep reassuring the tyrant wannabes that they have nothing to fear. I want those fear-mongering statists to gibber in terror and wet their pants at the very thought of daring to push around any American citizen. Or, for that matter, any free person anywhere in the world. The whole point of the rule of law is to prevent things from degenerating into that sort of chaos. The credible threat of armed revolt is the final guarantee that should never be discounted. Once you start doing that, you have conceded the political/philosophical fight to anyone who IS willing to pick up a gun, whether you bother to admit it or not, no matter the merit of your ideas.

1  "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" Sanford Levinson, 99 Yale L.J. 637-659 (1989). http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html

2 2001 NRA Firearm Facts cites 60-65 million. http://web.archive.org/web/20010603053931/http://www.nraila.org/research/19991123-GeneralInfo-001.shtml

GunTruths.com claims 65-80 million "Source: Department of Justice, NRA". http://web.archive.org/web/20030606112215/http://guntruths.com/Resource/facts_you_can_use.htm

National Institute of Justice says 44 million in "Guns in America", http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf though this survey conducted by two notoriously anti-gun workers is considered suspect by many. It is the lowest estimate I found in my personal research, some less authoritative numbers run as high as 100 million.

3 The United Nations Report of the Group of Governmental Experts on Small Arms claims the world stock of firearms is approximately 500 million (page 24 note 2). http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/CAB/rep54258e.pdf Estimates of the US civilian stock range from just under 200 million to nearly 300 million, depending on whose numbers you choose to use. (see sources cited in note 2) Even the most conservative reading of these numbers yields the 40% figure.

4 One good summary may be found in "The Irish Republican Army and the armed struggle in Irish politics" http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/irahist.htm

5 "Uncovering the Irish Republican Army" Jane's Intelligence Review Aug 1 1996, Sean Boyne http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ira/inside/

6  2001 NRA Firearm Facts http://web.archive.org/web/20010603053931/http://www.nraila.org/research/19991123-GeneralInfo-001.shtml


Hunter's Sixteenth Rule: There is a time to argue passionately for what you believe in... but there is also a time to gnaw off a leg in a desperate attempt to save your sanity.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2009, 08:46:52 pm by Hunter »
Logged
from an undisclosed secure location far, far outside Ohio

Hunter's Seventieth Rule: The Internet needs a "three strikes and you're out" rule. Of the gene pool, I mean.

Hunter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1438
    • Hunter at TPoL
Re: The collected crimes of the Hunter
« Reply #11 on: August 26, 2009, 06:51:24 pm »

As I remember it, somebody was fighting a flame war with Mary Lou Seymour, who I respect immensely. I don't remember now who it was, just that I was pretty irritated with them for the unreasonable way they were carrying on and giving a very nice lady a hard time. I originally started off to write a big mean defense of MLS's position, but on the way to the editor something interesting happened, and this came out. A much better idea, I'd say, and well worth reprinting somewhere one of these days. Only fault is I don't think I mentioned guns anywhere. (laugh)


Sierra Times

Flamethrowing & Backdraft

The Hunter 05.09.01

I have spent the past couple of days watching a flame war between two liberty activists. There is something about both the Internet and liberty lovers that apparently promotes such foolishness. The famous feuds of the post-Revolutionary era exemplified by Burr/Hamilton and Jefferson/Adams give some fairly clear evidence that the Internet only makes them happen faster. But just as those famous disputes distracted from the larger struggle and did nothing to advance liberty, neither does the persistent infighting among today's freedom lovers. With all the "men who would be king" busily trying to turn this into the Americanized version of Nazi Germany its appalling to see freedom lovers tearing into each other with gleeful abandon.

There are a lot of reasons why this sort of thing happens. An instinctive need to protect your turf, jealousy of the success of other activists, a large dose of "not invented here", and simple fanaticism of one sort or another. You can try to dress it up and put noble intentions on attacking an ally, but in the end it always boils down to something ugly.

The damage is far worse than is immediately apparent, too. Quite often when you set out to sully someone's reputation you tarnish your own in the process. There are an awful lot of events and news to keep track of on freedom issues. None of us have time to stay on top of all of them. So we all end up having to rely on a network of trust and reputations for reliability to find specialists to bring us up to speed when a particular battleground suddenly becomes important. So any nasty public feuding between those specialists makes it that much harder to know who you can trust when you suddenly have to know more about some obscure element of the never-ending war for liberty.

A sort of corollary of this has cropped up more than once in the many years I've been involved in this struggle. The "tripwire" group or activist who first becomes aware of a problem or is promoting a particular solution issues a call for much-needed reinforcements. The advent of the Internet has made spreading the word ever easier. I'm sure you all see dozens of alerts, warnings, and calls for action every week. All too often, though, the people asking for help are ill prepared for the simple task of answering the flood of questions that result.

Otherwise capable and informed volunteers arriving late on the scene are not going to be inclined to help ever again if they are openly referred to as "johnny come lately", or derided for their lack of knowledge. Of COURSE they're asking questions - you're the resident "expert". Now, which is going to impress them more? A hostile, arrogant jerk spouting off about how much more he knows than they do? Or someone who quietly and competently supplies the information they've requested? If you don't know or can't immediately supply what they need SAY SO. Nothing is more infuriating than non-answers and evasion.

If you want to keep the respect of people you are hoping to recruit to help your cause, NEVER deride their lack of knowledge of the subject. Half the battle is education. Deriding someone for asking a stupid question doesn't teach anything except that you are an abusive individual to be avoided. Smile and answer their question politely no matter how dumb it is. Preparing a series of stock answers (known as FAQ's for 'Frequently Asked Questions' on the net) is a damn good idea. Limit yourself to providing the information and leave the snide comments about the intelligence, morality, and probable ancestry of people asking the questions to your enemies. Why inflict your own fatal wounds?

Another trap all too many people fall into is the belief that their hard work somehow makes them superior to others who have not done as much. What they forget is that all their hard work becomes quite meaningless without all the small contributions of other people. Every helping hand counts, no matter how small. Treat every person who gives of his or her time or wealth gratefully. Besides the plain human decency involved its good tactics. You can't build up a base of repeat contributors and volunteers if you continually denigrate those small gifts. Whether you're religious or not, always keep in mind the scriptural lesson about the widow and the rich man both giving a few coins. What may seem like a pittance of help to you may loom large in the minds of the donor.

One frequent pitfall is refusing to work with someone because of issues or events completely peripheral to the current concern. If someone offers to help that you are suspicious of, simply accept the aid while making it clear that it's only for the present crisis. The ACLU is no friend of mine on gun issues, but I will happily join with them on privacy issues. Take advantage of every temporary alliance you can. The idea is to spread your ideas as widely as possible, and the opportunity to convince a wary former enemy that you DON'T have horns and cloven hooves might bear fruit somewhere down the road.

Miscommunication is probably the root of more problems than anything else I could talk about. I've been guilty of that a more times than I care to remember myself. If a conversation seems to be taking a turn for the worse, perhaps pulling the increasingly hostile correspondent aside for a private thrashing out of the issues might be a good idea. It doesn't always work, believe me, sometimes the difference of opinion really IS irreconcilable. But at least if you work out your agreement to disagree in amiable privacy you won't injure the cause that brought you together to drive each other nuts. Frequently you find that you are "violently agreeing" with someone.

What all of this advice comes back to is one simple point. Nobody is going to believe that you value individuals and freedom if you treat others badly and try to enforce your own cherished viewpoint on them. The entire point of the philosophy of freedom is to allow people to make their own choices. Often you are going to disagree with those choices. When that occurs you must politely and respectfully educate and inform, not denounce and vilify. There simply are not enough people who believe in freedom to afford that luxury. As Benjamin Franklin observed, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

Hunter's Forty-Ninth Rule: If you insist on hurting someone, don't be surprised if they hurt you back harder.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2009, 08:46:31 pm by Hunter »
Logged
from an undisclosed secure location far, far outside Ohio

Hunter's Seventieth Rule: The Internet needs a "three strikes and you're out" rule. Of the gene pool, I mean.

Hunter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1438
    • Hunter at TPoL
Re: The collected crimes of the Hunter
« Reply #12 on: August 26, 2009, 06:58:42 pm »

Blame El Neil for this one. I really liked a similar screed he did about one of the other many corporate sponsors of deprivation of unalienable civil rights under color of law. At this late date, I've no clue who he was berating, I suppose when that scholar tries to understand my work he can figure it out, probably something in Libertarian Enterprise. Anyway, when this one popped up, I wrote my own. I would might feel bad, if I didn't know both from my own reading and from emails with El Neil that he was inspired by much older polemics.

I submit for your consideration an old song (grin)

http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/lobachev.htm



   
Sierra Times

Bank of America Must Die

The Hunter 05.13.01

Every once in a while you run across someone who is just too stupid to live. The culture of American socialism has specialized in not just keeping nature from taking its course, but in glorifying that sort of idiocy. Besides that unfortunate fact, freedom lovers don't glory in the troubles of others the way socialists do. We just generally avoid people with those tendencies because they are trouble looking for a place to happen. Don Cline's May 11 story "Banks, Guns, and Feudal Lords" http://web.archive.org/web/20050904102926/http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/may/11/geddc051101.htm tells me that Bank of America's directors have earned the dubious honor of joining that club and taking their company with them.

Haven't these idiots heard? Don't they watch TV? Hmmn, well, I don't, so strike that last. It is utterly amazing to me that this far into the "culture wars" any company could think they could be so abusive to their customers and emerge unscathed. Privacy and gun rights are a pretty potent combination of hot button issues. This is a no-brainer, folks.

Mr. Cline is right, we should boycott Bank of America. But he didn't go far enough. Both gun owners and privacy advocates have already fired a shot across the bow of the banking industry. Have they forgotten the Battle of the "Know Your Customer" rules? Or the even more recent inglorious rout of Citibank in mere weeks from a long-standing policy of refusing the accounts of gun-related businesses? Let us never forget the economic devastation visited upon Smith and Wesson - nor how it has stiffened the resolve of other industry leaders.

It's time we stop messing around with these people. If the people at Bank of America were too stupid to learn from what happened to Citibank and Smith & Wesson, the company deserves what they get. Everybody who owns a gun or cares about privacy should not just write letters and threaten to withdraw their accounts. They should write letters after they close their accounts telling the bank why they did so.

Bank of America must die.

This is war, plain and simple, and they chose the wrong side.

Bank of America must die.

We're the side that believes in application of sufficient force to stop the threat, and they knew that before they threatened their customers.

Bank of America must die.

Apparently the only way to convince these guys we're serious is to hurt them very badly, mortally if possible.

Bank of America must die.

Don't worry, even if we succeed, there are still plenty of banks out there to do business with.

Bank of America must die.

There is no pressing need for anyone who believes in gun rights to do business with this particular bank ever again.

Bank of America must die.

Nor should you even accept checks drawn on their accounts, if you're in a position to do that.

Bank of America must die.

Their employees and assets will end up with whatever bank buys up the remains, or if they are really smart they will bail out now and avoid the storm.

Bank of America must die.

None too bright, these lads in the socialist boardrooms. They keep helping freedom lovers build our resolve and willingness to reluctantly inflict economic damage. You could not design a better training program. If we would do serious damage to Smith & Wesson, a company that we formerly liked and respected for many years, what do they think we're going to do to a despised national bank chain? Which covers all of them, come to think of it, in a none-too-thinly veiled hint to any other corporations who might consider crossing that particular Rubicon.

Bank of America must die.

Must I repeat myself?
« Last Edit: August 26, 2009, 08:46:01 pm by Hunter »
Logged
from an undisclosed secure location far, far outside Ohio

Hunter's Seventieth Rule: The Internet needs a "three strikes and you're out" rule. Of the gene pool, I mean.

Hunter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1438
    • Hunter at TPoL
Re: The collected crimes of the Hunter
« Reply #13 on: August 26, 2009, 07:19:46 pm »

This one gets a little complicated. Nancy Johnson had done an editorial criticizing something the NRA had done. Rather to everyone's surprise, Marion P Hammer submitted a response. Which didn't even address the points that JJ had raised. So I wrote this in response to her response. As I recall, I was not the only contributor who did so. Oddly, I never saw another response from NRA. It will all make sense when we're done, trusssst me.

Sierra Times

Why Not Answer The Real Question?

The Hunter 07.28.01

Ms. Hammer
I read with interest your July 26 response
http://web.archive.org/web/20041109132317/http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/jul/26/edmh072601.htm
to Nancy Johnson's July 14 editorial.
http://web.archive.org/web/20041109133049/http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/jul/12/ednlj071201.htm
It is in my considered opinion as a writer, a masterfully crafted piece of self-serving propaganda. I compliment you on the way you carefully and truthfully pointed out all the good the NRA does, while completely avoiding answering the points that Ms. Johnson raised.

There is no contesting the point that the NRA has the best safety and education programs in the world. That is one of the many reasons I have maintained a membership for my entire adult life. Neither can one argue the powerful role that women have played in the NRA, and that organization's continued commitment to bringing women into the shooting community. None of these fine achievements mentioned in your response speak to the point that Nancy Johnson correctly raised.

I've been heavily involved in gun rights activism since around 1980 or so. Throughout that 20 year or so period, stories of the NRA compromising away potential victories have been rampant. Many of the most ardent pro-gun supporters I know refuse to belong to the NRA. I have personally watched heavy- hitters from the NRA concede important rhetorical and legislative points to the gun-grabbers on numerous occasions. Compromise on unalienable rights is NOT reasonable, no matter how you try to spin it.

If the NRA is such a champion of unrestricted firearms rights, why does Charlton Heston wave around an antique musket at the annual meeting rather than, say, my favorite the FN-FAL or the AR-15, the civilian version of the current US military issue rifle? Why has the NRA not used their deserved status as the most influential lobbying group in Washington to demand the repeal of such unconstitutional measures as the magazine ban, the "assault weapons" ban, and the Brady bill? Why does NRA now support enforcement of the very laws that it once opposed passage of with its Project Exile, which is opposed by dozens of other gun rights groups? (see below)

In the time I have been a member of the NRA, I have watched with dismay as NRA allowed "shall not be infringed" to be interpreted as allowing one curtailment of my liberties after another. I have repeatedly watched NRA lobbyists step in and bargain away the hard work of others in the name of "reasonable compromise", "not appearing radical", or "maintaining access". I am not the only activist to feel betrayed by the NRA. I append below links to several well-known critiques of NRA actions for the consideration of Sierra Times readers. I believe that given the information they can decide for themselves. Unlike most others opposed to the NRA's current course of action I urge anyone who agrees with me to join the NRA with the express purpose of rooting out those who would compromise and appease away our unalienable rights.

We Condemn "Project Exile" http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=720 - dozens of pro-gun leaders publicly speak out against Project Exile, and as of this writing 2,262 members of the public have also signed the petition.

L Neil Smith's "Am I the NRA?" http://www.lneilsmith.org/am-i-nra.html

Brian Puckett's "NRA Management Turns Against Second Amendment" http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=468

Russ Howard's "Letter to Marion Hammer" http://web.archive.org/web/20030805132959/http://www.guntruths.com/Howard/marion_hammer.htm

Hunter's Hundred Ninety-Eighth Rule: Facts don't lie - without help.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2009, 08:45:31 pm by Hunter »
Logged
from an undisclosed secure location far, far outside Ohio

Hunter's Seventieth Rule: The Internet needs a "three strikes and you're out" rule. Of the gene pool, I mean.

Hunter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1438
    • Hunter at TPoL
Re: The collected crimes of the Hunter
« Reply #14 on: August 26, 2009, 07:29:06 pm »

There is a certain irony in this one, considering what happened to me later in Ashland, Ohio (you remember, the crater where the big asteroid hit). I also find it ironic that Horstman got a much better deal than I was able to, especially considering that he was in notoriously anti-gun Illinois, rather than facing a supposedly pro-gun prosecutor in a rural Ohio county. There were originally a couple of links in this one to sites that are dead, and I judged that pointing you at the Wayback Machine really adds nothing to the text now.


Sierra Times

Commentary on John Horstman arrest

By The Hunter 08.07.01

(This case has been fast moving and the charges have already been dropped, but it is never too late to learn the lesson afforded. Editor)

In case you have not yet heard, the gun-grabbers are on the march again. A state attorney in DuPage county Illinois just outside Chicago has arrested John Horstman and charged him with daring to carry a firearm, even though the state police, the governor, and even the courts have ruled http://www.concealcarry.org/carrylegal.htm that the method of carry he was using is legal. DuPage County State's Attorney Joe Birkett then added insult to injury by demanding that bond be set at $250,000. You heard that right, a quarter of a MILLION dollars - clearly intended to send a message to those upstart gun-owners. This particular upstart has a message to send to HIM, and it starts with a short history. A subject on which Mr. Birkett could clearly use a refresher course.

On July 4, 1776, the delegates from the 13 colonies approved the stirring Declaration of Independence authored by Thomas Jefferson. Every man in that room was already guilty of high treason, and was keenly aware that the war which was just over a year old was not going particularly well. Various nervous members of the Continental Congress had urged action besides an open Declaration, prompting John Hancock to warn "There must be no pulling different ways: we must all hang together." Benjamin Franklin, the fledgling nation's beloved elder statesman and legendary wit, is said to have added, "We must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately." The delegates signed unanimously despite their doubts, and 5 long years later Cornwallis surrendered to Washington at Yorktown.

What possible lesson is there in this "ancient history", you may well be asking? Hey, something for everyone, I'm in a generous mood. Both those who support the Constitution and un-American socialists like State Attorney Birkett can learn a valuable lesson from this.

Those of you who believe John Horstman is innocent and the rule of law should prevail are probably nodding and agreeing that Franklin's warning resonates loudly. Concealed Carry, Inc. is calling for a rally at the arraignment on August 20th. We need the sort of massive turn out that has served us so well at places like Jarbidge and Klamath Falls. This case has national implications, for do not forget that Mayor Richard Daly of Chicago was Al Gore's point man in Florida. The Democrats will be watching this one closely. There are legal maneuvers that could be brought to bear to bring the Justice department into the case, thus involving Attorney General Ashcroft and the Bush administration. But none of this is going to happen unless we "hang together", and support both the legal effort by donating to the defense fund, and the publicity effort by getting as many people as you know to expend the effort to attend the rally. Winning an important battle to preserve our freedoms is well worth a day off and some travel expenses, is it not?

(Rally may be held anyway. Watch SierraTimes.com for details. Ed.)

Oh yes, and let us not forget the lesson for the enemies of freedom. Newsflash, Mr. Birkett: England lost, and America has been a free nation which trusts its citizens with guns for over 200 years. You seem to get off on oppressing unarmed peasants, you should move there; you'd fit right in. I'll even offer to take up a collection for your air fare. What part of "shall not infringe" do you need help with, tyrant?

--- Hunter's Eighty-First Rule: You either fight for what's yours, or you give it to somebody who will.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2009, 08:45:04 pm by Hunter »
Logged
from an undisclosed secure location far, far outside Ohio

Hunter's Seventieth Rule: The Internet needs a "three strikes and you're out" rule. Of the gene pool, I mean.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up