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.

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

Jan 2004 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 -----

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

"A year before Columbine, a search warrant was drawn up to search the house of the killers but was never executed. For two years the Sheriff's department denied that there had been a warrant. It has now been revealed in court that the cops were lying. Rohrbough suspects that one of the killers' parents was close to someone in the Sheriff's department.

The Ten Commandments display was removed from the Alabama Supreme Court building. There was a good reason for the move. You can't post  "Thou Shalt Not Steal" in a building full of lawyers and politicians without creating a hostile work environment.

          September 29, 2003

Chief Justice New Mexico Supreme Court (Ret.) Speaks On Fear

What fear is doing to our freedoms

For the next few minutes, I would like to speak with you about a subject which I'm sure every New Mexico Foundation for Open Government member cherishes . . . "the public's right to know.”....

Fear is the most debilitating of all human emotions. A fearful person will do anything, say anything, accept anything, reject anything, if it makes him feel more secure for his own, his family’s or his country's security and safety, whether it actually accomplishes it or not.

It works like a charm. A fearful people are the easiest to govern.  Their freedom and liberty can be taken away, and they can be convinced to believe that it was done for their own good - to give them security. They can be convinced to give up their liberty - voluntarily.

Recently, the passage of the USA Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act have resulted in the most direct attacks on the Bill of Rights that I have seen in my lifetime. These acts were passed without any meaningful opposition and still have considerable public support.

The USA Patriots Act is an acronym for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism."

The way that government is going to be provided with these  "appropriate tools" is to "temporarily" suspend or eliminate as much of our Constitution and its Bill of Rights as it can, without court oversight or intervention, so that we will not be at a disadvantage in the war against terrorism.  That's the idea.

Think about that for a minute, and then ask yourself: Why in the world would we voluntarily do to ourselves that which our enemies over the last 200-plus years have not been able to do to us by force? Why would we be so willing to give up our God-given rights that have been verbalized in our Constitution, when we have fought so hard to preserve them?

It almost boggles the mind, when one considers what fear for one’s safety and security can accomplish. These bipartisan, virtually unopposed, legislative, governmental actions are saying to us, "If you temporarily give up some of your liberty and freedom now, you will be made more secure in the future."

That, my friends, is a terrible lie. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, "One who trades his freedoms for security, deserves neither." I might add that person will finally lose both.

The people have a right to know what their government intends to do about the war on terrorism, and that includes all of its branches - including the judicial branch.

In a time of war, actual or threatened, our courts have, in my opinion, repeatedly abdicated their function of equally interpreting and applying the Constitution, bowing instead to "national security."

The most horrible example was when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during the Second World War, because the government claimed they were a security threat. It took Congress some 50 years to attempt to rectify that horrible opinion.

Did we learn anything? I'm afraid not. Today, with this unending war on terrorism, our government has taken steps again to radically infringe upon the right to counsel, reasonable search and seizure, the right to a speedy and fair trial, and other fundamental liberties, for fear of losing our security.

We can hope that, eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court will subject these infringements to real constitutional scrutiny. Unfortunately, the courts have historically yielded to wartime fears and claims that our security interests would be jeopardized. Those prior wars ended before long and, when they did, the country regretted the fact that it had abandoned the Constitution, even temporarily.

The war on terrorism is different. It's a war on an old idea - one that has been used for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. It is a horribly destructive idea, but history has shown that you can't kill an idea, however horrible, by killing those who have it. You kill or replace an idea only by coming up with a better one. So far, we haven’t really tried to come up with a better one.

No one can even guess how long this war will last. In the meantime, Americans, as well as aliens, have been harshly affected by governmental measures after 9-11.

The attorney general of the United States had more than 1,000 aliens detained, keeping their names and locations secret. There are over 600 left at Guantanamo in Cuba. He ordered many deportation hearings in secret. He required visitors from 25 countries, mostly Muslims, to register with the government; and, if they didn't within 40 days, they were subject to arrest, detention and deportation - no public trials, no lawyers - all in secret, in the name of preserving security.

For example, one American citizen, Yasser Hamdi, was found under unexplained circumstances on a battlefield in Afghanistan. He was classified as an "enemy combatant," a new term which the government created to give it the power to seize and hold American citizens indefinitely, without counsel or trial, and without any effective review by the courts.  He was totally isolated and not allowed to see a lawyer. He was not charged with any crime.

However difficult, lawyers came forward and were eventually allowed to defend Hamdi. They immediately challenged his detention on constitutional grounds - specifically, that this American was denied his right to counsel, his right to know the charges against him, the right to face his accusers, and his right to a fair and speedy trial.

The federal 4th Circuit Court of Appeals sidestepped the Constitution and ignored Hamdi's constitutional rights as an American. Its holding: "The defendant, an American citizen, classified as an `enemy combatant,' does not have a constitutional right to counsel or trial, because `Mr. Hamdi was not being prosecuted.'"

The government, therefore, can impose solitary confinement indefinitely, by simply avoiding charging the defendant and giving such a defendant a lawyer or a trial. If this isn't a violation of the Sixth Amendment, Hamdi at least has certainly been deprived of liberty without due process of law.

James Madison, the principal author of the Bill of Rights, must be spinning in his grave. Most Americans would be shocked, I think, if they realized that they could be classified as an "enemy combatant,” taken off the street, imprisoned indefinitely and not be given the opportunity to call a lawyer. But you can, my friends. At least one federal appellate court has established that precedent.

Since 1990, (the Foundation for Open Government) has had a single mission:  to help the general public, students, educators, public officials, media and legal professionals understand, obtain and exercise First Amendment rights, as well as their rights under the New Mexico Open Meetings Act and Federal Freedom of Information Act.

The First Amendment is most important, or it would not have been the first.  But please don't forget the other nine, which, together with the first, compose the Bill of Rights, the foundation of this nation’s greatness and the real source of our security.

If the present situation lasts for a generation, as well it may, together with its formidable and direct attempt to restrict or eliminate the Bill of Rights in the name of security, then the next generation may not remember what their rights were.

There won't be anyone around to remember them or remind the next generation what they were. They may say that they eliminated or restricted them for your own good, and, besides, your forefathers and mothers voluntarily gave a lot of them up a generation ago.

So what is the Foundation for Open Government's mission? I think its prime purpose is to keep the public informed, to keep the government open and to preserve for the public their right to know. Its mission is to remind the people what has made this nation the greatest on Earth, especially why they should care, as well as why and how they can continue to preserve the Constitution and its magnificent Bill of Rights.

Those first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution are the real foundation for our freedom and liberty, our foundation for real security. It is the fundamental law, which has made us the land of the free and the home of the brave. We have been that for over 200 years. Let's keep it that way. 

“. It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." - Samuel Adams

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." - Henry David Thoreau   

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES September 18, 2003

Reject UN Gun Control!

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms Act." This legislation prohibits US taxpayer dollars from being used to support or promote any United Nations actions that could infringe on the Second Amendment. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Act also expresses the sense of Congress that proposals to tax, or otherwise limit, the right to keep and bear arms are "reprehensible and deserving of condemnation."

Over the past decade, the UN has waged a campaign to undermine gun rights protected by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has called on members of the Security Council to "tackle" the proliferation and "easy availability" of small arms and light weapons. Just this June, the UN tried to "tackle" gun rights by sponsoring a "Week of Action Against Small Arms." Of course, by small arms, the UN really means all privately owned firearms.

Secretary Annan is not the only globalist calling for international controls on firearms. For example, some world leaders, including French President Jacques Chirac, have called for a global tax on firearms. Meanwhile, the UN Security Council's "Report of the Group of Governmental Experts on Small Arms" calls for a comprehensive program of worldwide gun control and praises the restrictive gun polices of Red China and France!

Contrary to the UN propaganda, the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right; and, according to the drafters of the Constitution, the guardian of every other right. Scholar John Lott has shown that respecting the right to keep and bear arms is one of the best ways governments can reduce crime. Conversely, cities where the government imposes gun control have higher crime rates. Far from making people safer, gun control endangers innocent people by increasing the odds that they will be victimized!

Gun control also increases the odds that people will lose their lives and liberties to power-hungry government officials. Tyrannical governments throughout the world kill approximately 2,000,000 people annually. Many of these victims of tyranny were first disarmed by their governments. If the UN is successful in implementing a global regime of gun control, more innocent lives will be lost to public (and private) criminals.;

I would remind my colleagues that policies prohibiting the private ownership of firearms were strongly supported by tyrants such as Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung.

Mr. Speaker, global gun control is a recipe for global tyranny and a threat to the safety of all law-abiding persons. I therefore hope all my colleagues will help protect the fundamental human right to keep and bear arms by cosponsoring the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Act.

USMC Rules for Gunfighting:  

1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns.

2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap.  Life is expensive.

3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.

4. If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough nor using cover correctly.

5. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)

6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun.

7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.

8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running.

9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy of the gun.

10. Use a gun that works EVERY TIME. "All skill is in vain when  Murphy ((Murphy's Law)) pisses in the flintlock of your musket."

11. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.

12. Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.

13. Have a plan.

14. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work.

15. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.

16. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.

17. Don't drop your guard.

18. Always tactically load and threat scan 360 degrees.

19. Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them).

20. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.

21. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.

22. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

23. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.

24. Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

25. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with a "4."   

U.S. Navy Rules for Gun fighting:   

1. Go to Sea

2. Send the Marines

3. Drink Coffee

Fewer guns, more death By Jon Dougherty 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Gun-control enthusiasts in the United States and western Europe have a lot to answer for on the heels of two reports last week that prove, beyond a doubt, the barbaric lunacy of ensuring citizens are defenseless against armed criminal threats.

In the first, a British paper reported authorities have seen a 35 percent increase in gun violence in 2002  not so ironically, in the sixth year since Parliament passed a law banning personal ownership of most firearms.

So bad is the violence now that police say it has "spread like a cancer" across the whole of the country, the Observer reported. To put the level of violence in perspective, more British subjects are dying from gun violence now than before idiots in Parliament banned virtually all firearms.

"Handgun crime has soared past levels last seen before the Dunblane massacre of 1996 and the ban on ownership of handguns introduced the year after Thomas Hamilton, an amateur shooting enthusiast, shot dead 16 schoolchildren, their teacher and himself in the Perthshire town," the paper reported.

"It was hoped the measure would reduce the number of handguns available to criminals. Now handgun crime is at its highest since 1993," said the Observer. "New laws that make carrying a firearm an offence with a mandatory five-year sentence have won little favor with officers on the street. 'It changes nothing,' said one drug squad detective who asked to remain anonymous."

Meanwhile, here in the States, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study released last week found no conclusive evidence gun-control laws curb violent crime, suicides by firearms or firearms-related accidents.

The study found "inconclusive evidence" that gun-control laws, which include entire bans of certain classes of weapons, have any appreciable effect on gun-related violence.

Interestingly enough, where gun control is the staunchest New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and other major urban centers Britain-like handgun and rifle bans, some analyses contend, are doing little more than filling morgues with innocent, unprotected, law-abiding citizens.

"The sale of assault rifles has been outlawed. However, this has done little to reduce crime," says an analysis by  http://www.nationalissues.com/>National Issues, a non-partisan research site on the Internet.

What has helped reduce violent crime in our society? Criminals' fear of dying, that's what.

For example, on the issue of concealed-carry laws in the U.S. and their effect on crime, Jeffrey Snyder,  http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-284es.html>a New York attorney writing for the CATO Institute, a libertarian think tank, said initially "many people feared [such laws] would quickly lead to disaster: blood would literally be running in the streets."

But, after more than a decade since Florida broke ranks in 1987 and passed one of the nation's first liberal concealed-carry laws, "it is safe to say that those dire predictions were completely unfounded."

"Indeed," Snyder writes, "the debate today over concealed-carry laws centers on the extent to which such laws can actually reduce the crime rate."

I recall throughout the 1990s, as more states were passing concealed-carry laws, the FBI consistently reported reductions in violent crime. The anti-gun Clinton administration hailed this data as "proof" federal gun-control laws such as background checks and assault-weapons bans were working. Interestingly, not once did the FBI gauge the effect of state-level concealed-carry laws on violent crime. If the bureau studied the issue, they didn't make their findings public, but maybe that's because such information isn’t politically useful to a regime bent on banning guns.

Despite the truth about an armed populace's effect on criminal activity, the "conventional wisdom" among our power elite remains that we the people should be as disarmed and as powerless as possible. It's almost as if our elected leaders fear an armed populace almost as much as criminals do.

But it's past time for Americans truly concerned about public safety  To reject this authoritarian viewpoint. Armed criminals don't fear unarmed victims all too often, the crime statistics now overwhelmingly indicate, they kill them instead.

Any elected representative who supports a continuation of laws aimed at depriving Americans of their constitutional right to a firearm for self-defense deserves to be arrested, charged and convicted of murder. Their "fewer guns" approach to crime is responsible for more deaths than if we the people had been "allowed" the means to protect ourselves all along.

Green Party "Terrorist" Not Allowed to Fly

By Frederick Sweet, Intervention Magazine>January 12, 2004

Art dealer Doug Stuber, who ran Ralph Nader's Green Party presidential campaign in North Carolina in 2000, was pulled out of an airline boarding line and grounded this past holiday season. He was about to make an important trip to Prague to gather artists for Henry James Art in Raleigh, N.C., when he was told (with ticket in hand) that he was not allowed to fly out that day. When he asked why not, he was told at Raleigh-Durham airport that because of the sniper attacks, no Greens were allowed to fly overseas on that day. The next morning he returned, and instead of paying $670 round trip, was forced into a $2,600 "same day" air fare. But it's what happened to Stuber during the next 24 hours that is even more disturbing.

Stuber arrived at the airport at 6 a.m. and his first flight wasn't due out until nearly six hours later. He had plenty of time. At exactly 10:52 in the morning, just before boarding was to begin, he was approached by police officer Stanley (the same policeman who ushered him out of the airport the day before), who said that he "wanted to talk" to him. Stuber went with the police officer, but reminded him that no one had said he couldn't fly, and that his flight was about to leave. Officer Stanley took Stuber into a room and questioned him for an hour. Around noon, Stanley had introduced him to two Secret Service agents. The agents took full eye-open pictures of Stuber with a digital camera. Then they asked him details about his family, where he lived, who he ever knew, what the Greens are up to, and other questions. At one point during his interrogation, Stuber asked if they really believed the Greens were equal to al Qaeda. Then they showed him a Justice Department document that actually shows the Greens as likely terrorists - just as likely as al Qaeda members. Stuber was released just before 1 PM, so he still had time to catch the later flight. The agents walked Stuber to the Delta counter and asked that he be given tickets for the flight so that he could make his connections. The airline official promptly printed tickets, which relieved Stuber, who assumed that the Secret Service hadn't stopped him from flying. Wrong! By the time Stuber was about to board, officer Stanley once again ushered him out the door and told him: "Just go to Greensboro, where they don't know you, and be totally quiet about politics, and you can make it to Europe that way." In Greensboro, after Stuber showed his passport he was told that he could not fly overseas or domestically. Undeterred, he next traveled an hour-and-a-half to Charlotte. In Charlotte, the same thing happened. Then Stuber drove three hours to his home after 43 hours of trying to catch a flight. Stuber said he could only conclude that the Greens, whose values include nonviolence, social justice, etc., are now labeled terrorists by the Ashcroft-led Justice Department. Questions about how one gets on a no-fly list creates questions about how to get off it. This is a classic Catch-22 situation. The Transportation Security Agency says it compiles the list from names provided by other agencies, but it has no procedure for correcting a problem. Aggrieved parties would have to go to the agency that first reported their names. But for security reasons, the TSA won't disclose which agency put someone on the no-fly list.

Frederick Sweet is Professor of Reproductive Biology in Obstetrics and Gynecology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis