ARMED

ARMED-M

______________________________________________________________________________________

The Armed M is a publication of the 2nd Amendment SIG, a special interest group of American Mensa Ltd. Opinions expressed herein are the opinions of the writers, and not of American Mensa, Ltd., which has no opinions. This newsletter is linked to the Mensa web page WWW.Mensa.org as WWW.2Asig.iqhost.net. Almost all editions are on the web site. It takes about two minutes to download each of the sixty editions using dial up.

============================================================================

July 2003 I have moved and am now in Wilmington North Carolina. My E-Mail address is Smith705@Juno.com. I can always use contributions to the newsletter. If you write something or find something e-mail it to me I'll put it in the newsletter as space and theme allows. Bob Smith -----

================================================================================

Warfare Was Far More Deadly in Ancient Times

In "Constant Battles," author/archaeologist Steven A. LeBlanc shows that the era of sticks-and-stones combat was more dangerous than our own age of machine guns, aircraft carriers and long-range bombers. In primitive societies, war was a much stronger demographic reality; with about one-quarter of all men losing there lives in battle. Even World War II's death toll of about 50 million didn't approach that level of proportional carnage.

Did warlike European imperialists wreck peaceful utopias? Far from it.

The figure of 25 percent (give or take) appears again and again -- in forensic studies of ancient grave sites to 20th-century investigations of tribes in the Amazon rainforests and New Guinea highlands. It seems to hold up among our extinct cousins, the Neanderthals. Even primatologists studying chimpanzees have recorded it, because male chimps in the wild organize lethal attacks on males from rival groups. According to LeBlanc, population pressure and ecological stress are the root causes of warfare. "All humans grow, impact their environment, and, sooner or later, exceed the carrying capacity," he writes. When people start competing for scarce resources, he says, they lose any compunction they might have had about clubbing each other over the head.

That's life in a Hobbesian state of nature -- a war of all against all. The paradox is that today, while people are safer from violence, they are more likely to starve. In the foraging societies of the past, hungry tribes would prey on their neighbors, seizing the resources they needed or dying in the attempt. No modern governments stood in their way, as they do now.

Source: John J. Miller, "War of All Against All," Wall Street Journal, May 20, 2003; based on Steven A. LeBlanc and Katherine E. Register, "Constant Battles," St. Martin's Press, April 2003.

A petition drive is underway to convince lawmakers to "civilianize" hundreds of thousands of M-14 military battle rifles so they can be legally sold by the government to the general public as a way to pay for the Iraq war.

According to the online petition, "there is a strong demand for an M-14 DCM [Director of Civilian Marksmanship] program, which will curb government waste by providing up to $300-600 million [for] deficit reduction."

M-14

"With uncertainty of the price tag of the current war, this will help pay for freedoms we enjoy in this country," says the petition. "With the looming war deficit, our government should not throw away hundreds of millions of dollars by destroying M-14 rifles – some of which are brand new."

The petition, which is being spearheaded by Robert A. Yoder, says as many as 300,000 rifles could wind up in the scrap heap without the government getting any return on its investment.

The DCM program to save the M-14s could work like a similar program involving another venerable military workhorse, the M-1 (Garand) and M-1 carbine series of military rifles.

M1 Garand

The DCM sold those through the Civilian Marksmanship Program, a course that promotes firearms safety training and rifle practice for all qualified U.S. citizens with special emphasis on youth.

The Civilian Marksmanship Program also offers for sale AR-15-type match rifles, M1917 Enfields, M1903 bolt-action rifles (a former U.S. military weapon) and .22-caliber target rifles at subsidized rates.

M1903 bolt-action rifle

"The U.S. Rifle, 7.62 mm, M-14 was the first rifle the U. S. fielded that improved upon the highly regarded U. S. Rifle, Caliber.30, M1 (Garand) and attempted to give U. S. Forces a NATO-standardized weapon," says the online petition. "The M-14 came into active service around 1957 and remained the standard infantry weapon until the official adoption of the M-16 rifle in the late 1960s.

"Like its predecessor, the M-14 is now relegated to ship's arms rooms, ROTC detachments, storage bins in government arsenals and, of late, the demilitarized scrap pile," says the petition.

June 12 Neal Knox Update -- WOW!!!

The Alaska Legislature passed -- and yesterday Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski signed -- a REAL Right To Carry law.

If not disqualified from owning a gun, 90 days from now an Alaskan can drop one in her purse or tuck one under his jacket and go about their law-abiding business -- just like in Vermont.

The new law does not eliminate the state's concealed handgun permit program -- which requires training, fees and the like. Nor does it change prohibitions against carrying firearms into courthouses, schoolyards, bars and domestic violence shelters.

The governor's office told Associated Press that Alaskans could still apply for a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon in other states or to be exempt from background checks when purchasing firearms.

The law's chief sponsor, Rep. Eric Croft, D-Anchorage, told AP he had gotten tired of continually making minor improvements to Alaska's gun laws. "I object to the government putting a precondition on that constitutional right (to carry a weapon). I'm presumed to be a responsible citizen until proven otherwise," Croft said.

During yesterday's signing, Gov. Murkowski praised the legislature for passing the bill and NRA for protecting Second Amendment rights.

But NRA has never before -- to my knowledge -- pressed for a true Right To Carry law, and, on occasion, has threatened to politically downgrade legislators who supported Vermont-type laws in the states (as now U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave [R-Colo.] can attest).

NRA has refused to back Vermont-style bills on the grounds that such an elimination of most concealed carry prohibitions cannot be passed. They say it's hard enough, sometimes impossible, to get a bill passed and signed even if it has extensive training, high fees, and broad restrictions on where the license is valid.

That's usually true, but not always. One house in Alabama passed a Vermont-style carry law a few years back, but NRA State and Local didn't lift a finger to support it -- other than signing a letter after the bill had passed the Assembly.

In some states -- as in Ohio -- concealed carry has long been stalled by strong opposition from law enforcement and the political establishment while our forces are divided between pro-gun groups willing to accept a "Texas-style" restrictive license and those determined to accept nothing less than a Vermont-style law.

ILA argues internally that if a rural state with a friendly legislature and governor -- like Alaska -- passes a Vermont-style law, pro-gun forces in states with unfriendly legislatures and governors will be even further divided on what kind of law they'll work to pass.

Amazingly, even with "another Vermont law" already a reality, NRA hasn't yet mentioned the new Alaska law. I'm embarrassed to admit that I didn't even know the bill was in the works. The first I heard of it was a call last night from son Jeff, who had talked to ILA Liaison Brian Judy, who works out of the semi-independent Sacramento office.

I verified it by reading this morning's Anchorage Daily News (http://www.adn.com/alaska/story/3280484p-3310005c.html).

Jeff said Brian -- who is married to my former NRA secretary -- is "higher than a kite." I don't doubt it. And deservedly so.

He and the Alaskans have raised the bar.

Given the total lack of problems with concealed carry licensing laws -- whether or not they require any training, whether or not they have broad restrictions on carry, and whether or not they require big fees -- it's time to begin pushing for REAL Right To Carry.

Like Vermont. Like Alaska's.

And if the best we can do is something like Minnesota's new law -- which is a dandy, as licensing laws go -- then we should pass it. Then, like Alaska Rep. Eric Croft, use the non-problems with licensed citizens to press for the kind of right the Second Amendment was intended to protect.

By Jennifer G. Hickey
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

The speech delivered by President George W. Bush at the advocacy conference hosted by the American Medical Association may have received the most ink, but it did not elicit the most laughter from those in attendance. In fact, the humor was provided by one of the most unlikely of speakers – Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.

Addressing the conference with his right arm in a sling as a result of recent shoulder surgery, the conservative jurist used a liberal dose of sarcasm and humor in making the argument for an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. As Republicans and Democrats in the Senate dug in their heels to try to stop the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Scalia criticized the politicization of the nominating process, asserting that the nation's system of justice is getting kicked in the teeth.

"I've been predicting this for 20 years - that ultimately this theory of the living Constitution will destroy us, it will destroy the federal courts," Scalia said.

The current legislative loggerheads, he said, are a result of interpretations of the Constitution as a "living document" - one that is flexible and adapts to a society's ever changing standards. Scalia argued that as an originalist (he pleaded not to be labeled a "strict constructionist"), he knows what he is looking for - the original intent of the words used by the Constitution's authors at the time it was authored.

For instance, by specifically mentioning the right to a trial by jury in "capital" cases, the drafters left no doubt that they did not consider the death penalty to be cruel and unusual punishment (as has been argued by proponents of a "living Constitution"). If a judge adheres to the original intent, Scalia said, he also is bound by it regardless of his own personal beliefs. "If you don't want your judges confined by that, what do you want your judges confined by?" the justice asked.

Once the American people become aware that jurists are not using the original meaning of the Constitution as their guide, they will realize the judges must be making it up. "Once the people figure out what the game is, they will say, 'We will select our judges on the basis of who will create the Constitution that we desire.' You are watching this play out before your very eyes," Scalia said, referring to the judicial crisis that has resulted from inaction by the Senate on pending nominations.

Often depicted in frightening terms by his critics, Scalia displayed a strong sense of humor in outlining his judicial philosophy, as well as in describing the wrongheadedness of "living constitutionalists" who revel in what they see as the Constitution's recognition of the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of mature society." Repeating the phrase with sarcastic glee, Scalia inquired why "better societies only mature; [do] they never rot?"

Decried and demonized most often by liberals, Scalia advised the audience not to view the debate in terms of liberal versus conservative because "conservative Republicans are just as willing to distort the Constitution to their aims as are liberal Democrats. It has nothing to do with your social views."

He illustrated his point with two decisions handed down by the Supreme Court on the same day in 1996. In the first case (Romer v. Evans), the court ruled as unconstitutional an initiative passed by voters in Colorado denying special legal protection to homosexuals. It was deemed unconstitutional, said Scalia, in "violation of ... I have no idea. The sexual-preference clause?"

Liberals cheered the ruling, while conservatives derided it. The other case (BMW v. Gore) involved the question of whether a punitive award could be so grossly excessive that it would violate the due-process clause of the 14^th Amendment. At issue was incidental damage done to Ira Gore's new BMW (or, as Scalia called it, his "Beemer"). The car was repainted, but BMW did not tell Gore about the damage when selling it to him. A jury decided this constituted fraud and awarded Gore $4,000 in compensatory damages for reduced value of the car and $4 million in punitive damages.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the punitive-damage award was "grossly excessive" and, as Scalia added, "unconstitutional and a violation of ... I have no idea. The freedom-from-excessive-punitive-damages clause of the Constitution?"

Conservatives applauded and liberals jeered, but Scalia says a pox should be on both their houses. The Constitution was written to establish and protect American rights, as well as to prevent future generations who might not be as virtuous or wise as the Framers who wrote it from doing some foolish or evil things, he said.

"Its meaning doesn't change," Scalia contended. "To achieve change, all you need is a legislature and a ballot box. Things will change just as fast as you like." Instead of creating new rights in a way in which democracies normally do - by passing laws - proponent’s delight in the idea of a living Constitution because it enables judges who agree with their idea of change to insert a "right" that cannot be overturned. This is easier than engaging in the systematic process of persuading fellow citizens of the worth of a particular right and passing that right into law.

In adopting an originalist interpretation, Scalia told the audience, judges often find themselves supporting a right to which they personally are not opposed. In siding with the majority in a 5-4 ruling protecting the right to burn the flag, Scalia said he was bound by the First Amendment regardless of his views - and those of his wife. The day after the ruling, Scalia said he came down for breakfast to find the banner of the Washington Post heralding the decision and his annoyed wife humming "Stars and Stripes Forever."

Added Scalia, "If you have to be bound by what it meant when it was adopted you often have to reach results you don't particularly like."

Asked by an audience member about his views on the due-process rights of enemy combatants currently detained at Guantanamo Bay, Scalia refrained from addressing specifics. However, he said the likely question at issue if a case comes before the Supreme Court would be who has rights under the Constitution.

"Americans abroad, Americans anywhere, have rights under the Constitution . Aliens in the United States have rights under the American Constitution. But to say that aliens abroad have rights under the Constitution, well I am not sure I can govern that much territory," remarked Scalia to a clearly entertained audience. However, he concluded, there probably is a reason why the holding base is on Guantanamo Bay and not in Cuba.

Scalia will continue to be a lightning rod in the current debate over Estrada's nomination and in other Supreme Court nomination battles, but members of this audience left entertained by his wit and perhaps enlightened by his wisdom.

Jennifer G. Hickey is a writer for Insight.

How Gun Control "Worked" in Jamaica 1998 Tina Terry

Those who stridently and self-righteously lobby for the seizure of all guns by the government in America, particularly women like Sarah Brady, Barbra Streisand, Senators Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, would do well to study the results of forced disarmament in other countries.

I have personally lived through a government-instigated disarmament of the general public, and its subsequent, disastrous consequences: From 1961 to 1977 my father (who is a white American, as are my mother, sister and I) was stationed with his family and business in Kingston, Jamaica.

Around 1972, the political situation in Jamaica had so seriously deteriorated that there were constant shootings and gun battles throughout the city of Kingston and in many of the outlying parishes (counties). In years past no one had even had to lock their doors, but now many people hardly dared venture out of their homes. This was especially true for white people, and even more especially for Americans, because of the real risk of being gunned down or kidnapped and held hostage by Jamaicans, who had become increasingly hostile towards whites and foreigners. My father took his life into his hands every morning simply driving to work. Going to the market or to do a simple errand was often a terrifying prospect. The open hatred and hostility which was directed at us seemed ready at any time to explode into violence, and indeed did so towards many people on many occasions, often with tragic or fatal results.

The Jamaican government decided that the only solution to this volatile situation was to declare martial law overnight, and to demand that all guns and bullets owned by anyone but the police and the military be turned into the police within 24 hours. The government decreed that anyone caught with even one bullet would be immediately, and without trial, incarcerated in what was essentially a barbed-wire enclosed concentration camp which had been speedily erected in the middle of Kingston. In true Orwellian fashion, the government referred to this camp as "the gun court."

My father and all of our American, Canadian, British and European friends, as well as middle class Jamaicans of all colors (locally referred to as "black," 'white," or "beige") knew that we were all natural targets of this kind of draconian government punishment. The relentless anti-American propaganda spewed forth by Michael Manley, Jamaica's admittedly pro-Castro Prime Minister, had resulted in the widespread hatred of Americans, British and Europeans by many Jamaicans. Racial hatred of whites and "beiges," as well as class hatred of anyone who appeared to have money or property, were rampant.

Consequently, we all dutifully and immediately disarmed ourselves, and handed our weapons in at the nearest police station. It was either that or be sent straight to the gun court. Even after we had disarmed ourselves, we lived in deathly fear that the cops, not known for their integrity, and well-known for their hatred of whites and Americans, would plant a gun or bullet on our property or persons.

So there we all were - government-disarmed, sitting- duck, law-abiding citizens and expatriates. Anyone can guess what happened next: the rampant and unfettered carnage began in earnest. Robberies, kidnappings, murders, burglaries, rapes - all committed by the vast populace of still-armed criminals. Doubtless the criminals were positively ecstatic that the government had been so helpful in creating all these juicy and utterly defenseless victims for their easy prey.

We've all heard the phrase, "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns." I can personally confirm that this statement is absolutely and painfully true, because that is exactly how the Jamaican disarmament worked. At the time of the disarmament order, I was away at boarding school in the United States. However, I remember vividly coming home for the summer. I remember the muted but pervasive atmosphere of tension and terror which constantly permeated our household, affecting even our loyal black servants, who worked for and lived with us, and whom we took care of. (Practically every household in Jamaica, except the very poorest, had live-in servants. There was no welfare or public school in Jamaica, so middle-class families became completely responsible for the well- being of their servants, who were considered to be part of the family, including taking them to the doctor, and helping to educate their children.)

I remember lying awake in bed at night, clutching the handle of an ice-pick I had put under my pillow, and listening to the screaming of car-loads of Jamaican gangs going by our house, praying that they wouldn't pick our home to plunder. The favorite tactic was for a group of thugs to roar up to a house, pile out, batter down the door and rape, steal, kill, kidnap... whatever they felt like. They knew the inhabitants had been disarmed, and that they would be met with only fear and defenselessness. My pathetic ice-pick seemed incredibly puny, but it was all I could think of. Our family didn't even own a baseball bat. I remember lying awake thinking about how our beloved dogs were old and feeble, and that they could not protect us. And that I could not protect them either.

I can barely describe the abject terror and helplessness I felt as both a white American and as a young woman during that time. Jamaica was then about 90% black. Although I was (and still am) an American citizen, my family had lived in Kingston for almost 12 years when this situation occurred, and I considered Jamaica to be my real home. Many of my friends were Jamaican. My first serious boy-friend was Jamaican. For all its faults, I loved this beautiful, suffering island dearly, and I felt like a stranger when I was away at school in America, where I was always homesick for Jamaica.

When we had first moved to Jamaica in 1960, my sister and I (both blonde and obviously white) had been able to ride our horses up into the hills, and, whenever we encountered local Jamaicans, their salutation to us was open and friendly, as was ours to them. As things deteriorated into the reign of terror, and then the government instituted overnight citizen disarmament, when we ventured outside our home, we almost always encountered hate-filled stares and hostile hisses of, "Eh, white bitch! Eh, look 'ere, white bitch!" and other unprintable epithets.

Jamaica was, in the 1970's, a country with at least 50% illiteracy and an illegitimacy rate of over 50%. If a Jamaican girl wasn't pregnant by the age of 15 or 16, she was often derisively branded "a mule," since mules, the offspring of horses and donkeys, are almost always sterile. Being a woman, let alone a white woman, in such a climate, especially after the disarmament of the citizenry by the government, was one of the most terrifying experiences one can imagine.

At that time, I had never held or fired a gun. I had rarely ever even seen a gun. No one in my family had ever learned about, used or even talked about firearms, except my father, who had been in the U.S. army. In our social circle, guns were deemed "unseemly" and "inappropriate" for polite society, and especially for young ladies. I had never given much thought to any of the Bill of Rights, let alone the Second Amendment. Yet we Americans all knew the Bill of Rights did not protect us in Jamaica, just as it hadn't applied to us at our previous station in Singapore.

My dad had fought in World War II, however, and had brought back a Luger pistol, which he had taken with him to Jamaica when we moved there after having spent 6 years in Singapore. No law had prevented his bringing a gun to Jamaica in 1960. When my dad handed that pistol and all his bullets in to the police, I vaguely realized that he was no longer allowed by the government to protect my mom, my sister or me, or our household.

I was pretty confused at the time. Terrified of being kidnapped, raped, murdered, robbed, at the same time I was still mindlessly anti-gun, because the criminals all had guns, and the government had declared guns to be contraband, and we were all terrified of being hurt by bad guys with guns, all of which somehow meant that guns must be "dangerous" and "bad" and therefore should be banned, just as the Jamaican government had decreed. As white Americans, our status was that of permanent guests in a foreign and increasingly hostile country. In fact, after 6 years in Singapore, and 12 in Jamaica, we well knew how to strive to be "model guests," which meant that questioning or challenging the Jamaican government's authority was unthinkable -- even when such government authority decreed that we be made helpless. None of us had any illusions about any "rights" to defend ourselves. We might have been able to do so with the government's blessing in the good old days, before chaos and violence and racial hatred had taken over. But now it was different. Now we were white, visible, foreign, sitting ducks in a hostile black sea. And I was a white, visible, foreign, female sitting duck.

As obedient as I was to authority, I grasped that our household was defenseless, and that I as a woman was particularly defenseless. And I realized that, had my dad still had his pistol, I would have felt much safer. I even realized that I would be willing to pick up a gun if my life were threatened. For a person who claimed to be anti-gun, these feelings really confused me.

At least eleven friends and acquaintances of my family were raped, kidnapped, murdered or robbed within about a year after the disarmament, and I believe it is a miracle that we are all still alive. I am convinced that many of these people would not have been victims had they not been disarmed by the Jamaican government. It was tragically ironic that the government had sold this whole disarmament program to us with the promise that: "We're here to help you, and this is for your own good and safety."

Because of this horrid and indelible experience, and of my interest in and undying loyalty to the American Bill of Rights, I have made it my personal business to study the history of the Second Amendment. I have studied related topics, too, such as police responsibility to citizens. It is my belief that many people believe that disarmament is no big deal, because it is the job of the police to protect us. Particularly many women seem to believe this. The media and of government authorities continue to generate pervasive and corrosive propaganda aimed at creating a helpless and disarmed populace. I used to completely believe this propaganda, but I have learned the following realities:

1. The police have no legal duty to protect individual citizens, and cannot be held responsible if they fail to do so. Even if a citizen's 911 call gets through to the emergency center, the police can simply choose not to show up, and the citizen has no legal recourse against the police. The courts have repeatedly ruled on this. As the court wrote in Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982): "There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order." The U.S. Supreme Court, in MU< v. 59 U.S. 396, ruled in a similar vein as far back as 1856.

2. The police carry guns primarily to defend themselves, not to protect us.

3. Because of items 1 and 2 above, we should all consider the police to be, essentially, historians. They show up after the crime has been committed and attempt to reconstruct and document the history of the crime. If the history is satisfactorily re- constructed, then the perpetrator is apprehended (if he can be found) and then (perhaps) prosecuted. This after-the-fact law enforcement does little good for the dead or wounded crime victims.

4. Women have a particular stake in preserving the right to bear arms. There is no way to describe the helplessness a woman feels when she is disarmed and made helpless by anyone. Add to that the rage she feels when the agency who is disarming her and leaving her at the mercy of rapists, murderers, goons and thugs, is a sanctimonious government telling her that it's "for her own good."

Although there are many serious issues in today's roiling political and social stew, I believe that preserving and restoring the Bill of Rights in general, and the Second Amendment in particular, is the most pivotal and basic issue to all Americans, and particularly female Americans, even if they don't yet know it. The consummate idiocy propounded by some folks (including some women) that the Second Amendment exists only to protect sportsmen's rights is particularly ridiculous relevant to women, most of whom don't hunt, and who care more about being able to get a decent hand-gun for self-protection than a hunting rifle to pursue deer or elk.

Anyone who thinks the Bill of Rights is either "out of date," "hokey" or "needs revising" - all of which I've heard from well-meaning but tragically ignorant and complacent Americans - should try living in a country which doesn't have one. I have been there and done that, and I don't want to go through it ever again - especially not in my own native nation. So I am dedicated to preventing today's government nanny from turning, as so often has occurred in history, into tomorrow's government despot.

Finally, I implore anyone reading this, particularly women, to likewise dedicate themselves to studying this issue carefully, and to likewise taking an active stance to preserve the Bill of Rights in general and the Second Amendment in particular.

Postscript: As of the latter part of August of this year (1998), it doesn't appear that the situation in Jamaica has changed much for the better. Many Jamaicans of all colors have immigrated to America to start businesses and to escape the hopelessness of the situation in their homeland. I recently spoke with a black Jamaican named Marcus, who has opened a wonderful Jamaican restaurant in Phoenix named Likkle Montego, where I can go and eat Jamaican food, and catch the latest news from my long-lost home. When asked how things are today in Kingston, Marcus simply shook his head: "Nottin' change attahl, y'know. Everyt'ing still de same. Crime is still bad, mon. Gov'ment still de same. T'ings dere is bad and terrible, mon. Bad and terrible."

And guns are still outlawed in Jamaica. Armed criminals still terrorize disarmed citizens, since still in Jamaica only outlaws (and the government) have guns.

Like the man said: Bad and terrible, mon. Bad and terrible.