ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization
(Subscribe/UnSubscribe instructions near the end of the message)
August 1, 2001
ALERT: On nuclear weapons and the 'well-regulated militia'
by Vin Suprynowicz
Special to JPFO, for release Aug. 1
Signing himself, "M.D., Ph.D.," a reader I'll call by the
initials D.H. wrote in recently:
"Dear Vin, I have just finished reading your book 'Send in the
Waco Killers'. Congratulations on writing such an interesting
and provocative book. I also enjoy your columns, especially
those on U.S. drug policy. You were right on to castigate the
oblivious public for its complicity in shooting down the
missionary and her daughter. The whole drug policy travesty/
scandal is a major reason why I've moved to Canada.
"I have a couple of questions. In your book, you seemed to
sidestep the question of what the Founding Fathers (may they
stop spinning in their graves) meant by "well-regulated" in
relation to militias. Also, if you permit private citizens to
possess heat-seeking anti-aircraft missiles as part of their
2ndA rights, as you suggest, why not nuclear bombs? Isn't it
all a matter of degree? Or do nuclear bombs fit under the 2ndA
as well?
"Keep up the great work."
# # #
I replied:
Hi, D.H. --
If you take a double rifle to a British gunsmith -- to this day --
and ask him to "regulate" it, he will ask not about government
restrictions, but rather for what charge and weight of ball you
want those two barrels "regulated." Those barrels are said to be
"regulated" for a .45 caliber ball ahead of 70 grains of black
powder if they will both hit the same target at a predetermined
range (often, 60 yards) with that loading.
A "well-regulated" militia is one which is well enough practiced
in the use of their weapons -- and accustomed to operating
together in the field -- to be an effective fighting force.
Far from "sidestepping this question" (the victim disarmament
gang only keep SAYING we ignore it -- it's a rhetorical trick,
you see) I define the term directly at the bottom of page 424:
"Well-regulated means well-trained ... in firing volleys,
reloading quickly, and blowing things up. What do you think
George Mason and George Washington were up to when they organized
meetings of the Fairfax Country Militia in the mid-1770s --
trading ginger cookie recipes?"
Nor would the other Founders have told George and George,
"You're only free to exercise your 'collective right' to bear
arms by joining the uniformed mercenaries retained by the crown
governor." Quite to the contrary, such "special militias" -- the
18th century equivalent of today's "National Guard" -- were a
form of armed security the Founders specifically warned us
AGAINST, insisting that the only guarantor of freedom was that
"every man be armed; everyone who is able must have a gun."
(Patrick Henry, who called this "the great object.") No, George
and George did not seek the crown's permission to take up arms
and form their Committees of Correspondence.
More importantly, I continually ask, both in my first book and
in my subsequent writings, "If the other side wants to insist on
the relevance of the non-binding introductory phrase, 'A well-
regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
state ...' let Janet Reno and company explain to me when and
how and where I and my hunting buddies are SUPPOSED to go to
practice our small-unit tactics with M-16s and a Model 58 or
Model 60 Squad Automatic Weapon, the better to BECOME a 'well-
regulated militia,' better prepared to shoot and kill the next
tyrant to dispatch tanks against harmless civilians on American
soil. We'll drive as far out into the desert or the woods as
they like; just let them explain to us how we're supposed to
legally practice such drills without being jailed for "conspiracy
to violate the National Firearms Act of 1934."
The answer is that these scum are lying. For us to form "well-
regulated militias," well able to resist federal tyranny or
usurpation, is the LAST thing they want. Are they pestering
Congress, asking the delegates to set sensible performance and
readiness standards for the Michigan Militia and the Ohio
Unorganized Militia and Arizona's Viper Militia -- standards
which, once met, will allow these citizen militias to receive
cargo planes full of free surplus Stingers and pack Howitzers
from Washington, thus discharging Congress' duty to "provide
for ... arming .. the militia" (Article I Section 8)?
They would shriek in horror at any such proposal. This "You
forgot the militia clause, nyah nyah" mantra is nothing but a
totally insincere Jesuitical posturing designed to get their
chorus of bed-wetters nodding in unison as they were taught in
their government youth propaganda camps, chanting "Right, no
guns unless they're part of the militia, which really means
the National Guard" -- that National Guard which the Founders
warned us AGAINST, their warning term at the time being a
"special militia," comprised of uniformed mercenaries paid by
and loyal only to the seat of power.
Do those who insist "Now we have a National Guard so we no
longer need a citizen militia" actually contend the National
Guard is there to protect us FROM the government? Did the Texas
National Guard race to the defense of the harmless and innocent
Branch Davidians at Waco ... or did it loan its military
helicopters to the federal killers, happily topping off their
tanks and cheering them on their way?
# # #
As for nuclear weapons, language is important. Look at your own
words: "If you permit private citizens to possess ..."
It is not the business or authority of Vin Suprynowicz to
"permit" private citizens to possess or not possess anything
... and I certainly wouldn't FORBID them the ownership of
anything except stolen property.
So, for starters, you probably mean: "If the federal government
permits private citizens to possess ..."
But here we run into the same problem. All federal lawmaking
authority is vested in the Congress, and is the Congress
authorized to permit or ban or allow or infringe the private
ownership of arms? Actually, two provisions apply: In Article I
Section 8, as mentioned, Congress is given power to "provide for
... arming .. the militia." It may give us arms. But may it TAKE
away those arms, or any other arms?
No. The Second Amendment bars any INFRINGEMENT of the right to
keep and bear arms.
A "power to allow or not allow"? Not there. Nor anywhere else.
Is it appropriate for the federal government to own nuclear
weapons? That is to say, has any federal official in the
military chain of command -- from Harry Truman on down -- ever
been put on trial for merely having control over nuclear weapons?
No.
Therefore, shall we surmise the federal government and its
agents have some proper and duly delegated right, power, or
authority to possess such things?
If so, where did it or they get that right, power, or authority?
Fortunately, under our system of government, we know what the
answer must be: The government can acquire no right, power or
authority except those which are delegated to it by the people.
Can you delegate a right, power or authority which you do not
already possess?
No.
Therefore: The American people, both individually and as a group,
have the right, power and authority to own nuclear weapons. No
other condition can apply, unless you submit that we now live
under a form of government where all rights and powers start
with the GOVERNMENT MASTERS, who then bestow upon us (their
peasants and slaves) only those lesser and included rights
which our masters wish US to have.
On page 414 of "Send in the Waco Killers," I cite noted
federalist and friend of Madison Tench Coxe to the effect
that "Their swords, and every other terrible instrument of
the soldier, are the birth right of an American. ... The
unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either
the federal or the state governments, but, where I trust in
God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
It was only upon the receipt of such solemn, written promises
as this that Madison's proposed Constitution was ever ratified.
What does "unlimited power" mean? If I possess "the unlimited
power of the sword," who shall limit it?
Is the nuclear bomb one of the "terrible instruments of the
soldier"?
# # #
How seductive is the old siren song: "Come on, prove you're
REASONABLE; admit you don't have any NEED for a nuclear
warhead."
But once we start down that road, won't they also wheedle and
cajole and nag us into stipulating that we don't really "need"
a tank ... a howitzer ... a shoulder-launched missile ... a
machine gun ... a semi-automatic rifle ... anything, finally,
beyond an unloaded black-powder ceremonial flintlock with a
plugged barrel that we're allowed to take out of the police
locker only long enough to carry in the Fourth of July parade?
How would we respond if asked to prove we "need" to go to
church or temple as much as twice a week? Surely once a week
is enough, isn't it? How about every OTHER week? Can you prove
you "need" to speak to your God in prayer more than twice a
month?
The only way to win that debate is to refuse to enter into it:
Freedom of religion is my RIGHT, and a right exists without any
requirement that I prove to your satisfaction my pragmatic
"need" to exercise it. In even ATTEMPTING to prove to you that
I "need" to be able to go to church when I please, or to publish
any column I care to write ... or to own a nuclear bomb ... I
lose the argument at the outset. "Need" simply doesn't come into
it.
"The right of self-defense is founded in the law of nature, and
is not, nor can be, superseded by any law of society," sayeth
Sir Michael Foster, judge of the Court of King's Bench, in the
late 18th century. If your enemy or oppressor has a bomb, then
get yourself a bomb. "And he that hath no sword, let him sell
his garment, and buy one," sayeth Jesus the Nazarene (Luke 22:36.)
Have you really read my chapter on "Demonizing the militias"?
All those founding fathers -- re-read pp 412-418, for starters --
reassuring us that "The supreme power in America cannot enforce
unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people
are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular
troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United
States" (Noah Webster)?
Is that the situation that prevails today? Government officials
cowering in fear that if they try to enforce "unjust laws"
they'll be shot down by a civilian populace that's got them
thoroughly outgunned? Then why did medical marijuana patient
(and former Libertarian gubernatorial candidate) Steve Kubby
have to flee to Canada with his family just last week to avoid
being jailed -- doctors say his adrenal cancer will quickly kill
him if he's deprived of his "illicit" medicine -- YEARS after a
clear majority of Californians voted to OK medical marijuana?
That facts and rights and truths are inconvenient or
"inconceivable" means no more than to say that to a prisoner of
some dank cell on Devil's Island, running 100 yards in a sunlit
field is "inconceivable." It defines the limits of your
perception and your expectations -- your ability to VISUALIZE
LIBERTY -- not the limits of the world.
Plenty of nuclear weapons ARE possessed by all kinds of people,
including the kind that wear turbans. Government "safeguards"
are a joke. Think no hijacker could get past the Fred & Ethel
Mertz Security System down at the local airport if they really
tried? It took Capt. Marcinko only a matter of minutes to
penetrate the supposedly ironclad "security" at the American
embassy in London -- right through to its ultra-secure "code
room." He simply sent a man in a Marine uniform, carrying a
clipboard, walking boldly in the side "smokers' door." Last
week, the Justice Department revealed that the FBI has lost
449 sidearms and submachine guns -- one of which was even used
in a homicide. But we're supposed to believe they've NEVER lost
enough plutonium to make a bomb? Noooo. After all, they're not
mere fallible mortals. They're "the government." We can "trust"
them.
The only reason the Soviets didn't nuke Washington is that
Washington would have nuked them back. What is the only reason
Washington wouldn't nuke US? Because they're "really nice guys"
who "wouldn't go THAT far" to hold onto power?
# # #
I've said my right to bear arms is not DEPENDENT on demonstrating
any "need." But I'll tell you one group of people that desperately
"needed" a nuclear weapon: The innocent women and children of the
Mount Carmel Church of Waco, Texas. If Uncle Sam spent most of
the past 50 years negotiating with Soviet Russia rather than
attacking them in cattle cars, don't you think Janet Reno's
approach to a nuclear-armed David Koresh might have been a
little more calm and polite?
Ditto the Florida relatives of little Cuban refugee Elian
Gonzales.
Imagine it: Citizens well enough armed that our federal government
would feel obliged to approach us with respect, ASKING whether
we might be willing to help them out in a spirit of cooperation
... rather than busting down our doors, shoving German MP-5s up
our nostrils, and asking questions later.
That facts and rights and truths are inconvenient is no excuse
for turning our eyes away from them. If I have the skills to
build or the money to buy one, I have a right to own a nuclear
weapon, and so do you. How could it be otherwise? To say
otherwise is to say I have no right to make myself a straw hat
just because I have the straw, because the government has
declared a monopoly for itself on hat manufacture, and I must
first pay a tax for the privilege. This is like telling Mr.
Gandhi that "making salt" was a British government monopoly.
We all know where that got them.
And of any government which will not trust its own people with
these weapons we need ask, "Then why should we trust YOU with
them? Because you promise never to use them to cow us into
servitude ... as you once promised, before Waco, never to
use military tanks and armed helicopters against American
civilians -- women and children -- on American soil? To enforce
a mere $200 tax?"
Has the government in Washington City ever show any reluctance
to use weapons of mass destruction against a civilian populace
when it seemed necessary to get its way? Forget Nagasaki for a
moment; Did Grant shell the civilian population of Vicksburg?
Was he punished for wantonly killing those civilians ... or
rewarded with his government's highest office?
No, D.H., it is not "all a matter of degree." Quite the
opposite. Providing only that I don't use them to threaten,
intimidate, rob, or murder other sovereign individuals, in
terms of the right of government to infringe them, my liberties
are not subject to being "weighed against the government's
compelling interest in keeping people from smoking marijuana,"
or "weighed against the government's compelling interest in
preserving the endangered sucker fish," or "weighed against
the government's compelling interest in making sure little
girls can go to bed at night without being frightened by the
sound of gunfire," or ANYTHING ELSE. They are ABSOLUTE.
And the sound of rifles being sighted in on the 200-yard range
is the sound of freedom.
It does not say "shall not be infringed, unless the weapon in
question is really scary." They're SUPPOSED to be scary. The
occupants of Washington City are supposed to go to bed every
night, wondering if anything they've done today will get them
what it got Charles the First in 1649, or Louis XVI in 1793.
To their oaths of office -- unless we decide to sweep those
offices away entirely, as is our right at any time -- should
be added, "And if this day you usurp the rights or liberties
of the very least American, be afraid ... be very afraid."
Somehow, I doubt they're losing much sleep over my deer rifle.
Do you think?
-- V.S.
Vin Suprynowicz, assistant editorial page editor of the 180,000-
circulation daily Las Vegas Review-Journal, is the only member
of the "mainstream" media who uncompromisingly champions the
absolute human right of individuals to defend themselves and
their loved ones against all aggressors and predators --
uniformed or otherwise -- and to keep and bear the means to
get it done.
Vin has been a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist for
the past nine years. He authored the book "Send in the Waco
Killers: Essays on the Freedom Movement, 1993-1998" (the 1999
"Freedom Book of the Year.") Now, he's launched his latest
weapon in the fight for individual freedom, the monthly
newsletter "Privacy Alert" -- a sharp-edged tool that everyone
can use to increase their own freedom, while reaching out to
help friends and loved ones "get on board," as well.
More than just the hardest-hitting newsletter you'll find
covering virtually everything related to protecting your
personal and financial privacy (or, as Vin likes to put it,
"Your guns, your gold, your freedom,")
"Privacy Alert" also gives you the benefit of Vin's 25 years
as a professional investigative journalist. You get the
low-down on the uses and misuses of SSNs, alternate IDs,
confidential banking facilities, onshore and offshore
privacy havens, anonymous credit cards ...
But that's only the half of it. With "Privacy Alert" you also
get the best of Vin Suprynowicz: longer pieces that are likely
to run in any daily newspaper -- in-depth reports fresh out of
today's news on a wide range of issues that graphically and
with heart-rending poignancy demonstrate the reasons WHY it
has become so important for us all to learn how to protect
ourselves from snoops, con artists, vindictive ex-spouses,
unscrupulous business people, ambulance chasers, intrusive
government child-snatchers, and regulators and taxmen of
every stripe.
All with the credibility of a reliable, trained, experienced
American newsman with an anti-establishment bent.
For complete information on Vin's newsletter, "Privacy Alert" --
how to subscribe; how to order his world-changing book -- send
e-mail to privacyalert@..., or call 775-348-8591.
Call by Aug. 14 and mention JPFO: You'll be eligible for an
extra bonus if you subscribe -- 13 months for the price of 12,
on top of all other current bonuses.
-30-