Slashdot Mirror

Force of arms was actually used to ensure a fair, representative government in Athens, Tennessee in 1946.

"Hm, this reminds me of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. That's not changing any time soon, is it?"

Great Britain and Australia have seen their violent crime rates soar since revoking the right of ordinary citizens to own guns.

Over 50 million people were murdered by their own governments during the 20th century, and the first thing these governments did to start their cleansing programs was outlaw guns for ordinary citizens.

So tell me exactly why the Second Amendment makes no sense?

You must have stopped by my web page. I used to link to the JPFO in my sig, but that's been some time.

For anyone else reading, the JPFO is an organization that supports all the bill of rights for all citizens. Check 'em out!

-Peter

I'm sorry, but I call bullshit.

Once upon a time, the NRA received dues from me, it took only one major election cycle to notice that they are merely shills for the Republican and Democrat parties. Libertarians are, how can I put this politely..., a freaking thorn in their side. What's the one thing that would bankrupt the NRA? Actual enforcement of the Bill of Rights! Then the NRA would have to go back to being a marksmanship club. Boo Hoo!

So I went looking for a more focused rights-oriented, rather than money oriented, organization and found Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership who didn't care a bit about my Jewishness. Their _Grandpa Jack_ book series is excellent.

And, of course, money to Debian for the best Linux distribution on earth.

Bob-

Rapists love trigger locks.

We're turning into squalid East Germany [...]

Agreed; I even found the fact that they used "Homeland" which sounds so much like "Fatherland" to be mildly entertaining.

But they took it from a long US playbook, which includes the late Senator Thomas J. Dodd (D-CT) checking the 1938 Nazi gun control laws out of the Library of Congress immediately prior to writing the US's 1968 gun control laws--which look surprisingly like the 1938 version! (In fact, barring translation issues, they're almost word-for-word according to the second link.)

I don't know which bothers me more:
1. That they do these things intentionally;
2. That we allow them to do it without raising holy hell;
3. That we keep voting them into office.

What's more, much of the high murder rate in the U.S. is due to our drug war. If you're dealing with a lot of money on a black market, violence is the only way to enforce a contract. You can't exactly take the other guy to court. Legalize drugs, and watch the violence go away.

In any case, the "right to life" doesn't mean much if you're denied the means to defend your own life, and that of your loved ones. All you're left with is "the right to be avenged by your government after somebody kills you."

As for the courts, the issue is not nearly so clearcut as you seem to think...for example, the 5th Circuit recently issued a 2nd-amendment decision that does support the above view, and writings by the authors of the Constitution are readily available to support it.

The .223 is in no way a "magnum" cartridge, military ammo doesn't use expanding bullets (per the Geneva Convention) but hunting ammo does, and I'd rather you not shoot me with anything; but if you did threaten my life with deadly force, I'd rather be able to shoot back with an effective round. This argument is preposterous, and shows how very little you really do know about guns. As to your specific numbered points:

1. Why Americans lack of faith in the democratic process, instead turning to force
- We don't lack faith in the democratic process at all. We are very suspicious of government, and rightly so, but not faithless. We only turn to force as a last resort; but we'd rather not have our last resort disarmed years before it comes to that. We don't want to make the same mistake others in the past have made. (vide Theodore Haas)

2. How civilians armed with M16s will take out tanks
- The Second Amendment doesn't stop at guns. But that's an entirely different topic. If you think that I can go to the corner store now and buy an M16, you are vastly mistaken about American gun laws.

3. My point on governments that fear the populace
- You didn't understand mine - I said "fear" as in the sense that someone is a "God-fearing Christian" who does what God wants out of respect and admiration; not someone who does what God wants to avoid being smitten. The government is here to serve the populace, not the other way around.

4. Why you really need assualt weapons
- "Assault weapon" is a made-up term that is used to incite emotional responses to specific guns and gradually move the line further back. One state has actually considered adding pump-action rifles to the definition of their "assault weapon" ban. Before I answer, what definition do you use?

Regardless of that, though - why does need have anything to do with a freedom? Why do you need to post on Slashdot? Why do you need to read news about foreign countries? Need has nothing to do with it - and that is a fundamental difference between your philosophy and mine.

I'm not a member of the NRA.

Or read up on the Deacons for Defense, and you'll see that peaceful civil disobedience wasn't the only thing that got American blacks out from under the KKK.

Fortunately all we have to worry about is people smashing our cognac glasses.

-j-

Sometimes, there are good reasons to post anonymously (although I won't here, but I'm glad for the option;)

Besides, publicly accessible data posted anon is different from the law requesting user data. The fact that there are certain goverment parties interested in 'going after' these people who committed no crime (by posting publicy available information) sorta proves the point that anonimity is desirable. You don't want the FBI breaking in your door and confiscating all you computers, even if it means you are found not guilty in the end.

Hell, Thomas Paine and Samuel Adams wrote anonymously !

As for scientific research, I don't think knowledge is destructive. I agree that the fruits of scientific research can be very destructive (atomic weapons, bio weapons, drugs, etc.) That's why there are things like the nuclear non-proliferation treaties, and the FDA. If you think that knowledge itself is dangerous, then I guess we have a major difference of opinion

Merely testing how far you think a restriction ought to go. There are some who WOULD consider the mere posession of certain types of knowledge too dangerous for "regular people" to have.

Cars are useful though, so I don't think they should be banned. It's not like the only purpose of a car is to run someone down, that's just something that occasionally happens. For that reason, the benefits of cars outweigh the risks. That doesn't hold true for guns.

That's actually where I would disagree with you. If I understand correctly, to your mind, having guns = increased likelyhood of something going wrong. This presupposes that of the legal users of firearms, some of them will be involved in incidents where the negative consequences of having a firearm will outweigh any positive benefit, and that there really isn't any positive benefit for having a firearm, hence your argument that firearms be restricted. However, I believe that there are positive benefits for firearms training, firearms usage, and ownership (for those who choose to do so), AND I believe that even if some might misuse firearms, to restrict the rights of many in advance, for the actions of a few, is a form of control with troubling implications.

For example - I target shoot infrequently with rifle and pistol. This is a form of recreation, just the same as people shooting targets using bow and arrow (with many of the same range rules, I might add), and a sport that has a place in the Olympics, in the form of the biathlon, and distance shooting competitions. Firearms training is often taught by those with a love of sport shooting or hunting, much in the same way that hams with a love of technology and communications teach ham radio. These people shoot on a recreational basis - eliminating private ownership of firearms would deprive these individuals of an enjoyable hobby, and effectively restrict training to law enforcement and military only. This would seem to run contrary to efforts such as the Civilian Marksmanship Program, which seeks to promote youth development and civilian marksmanship skills.

I agree that if guns were completely illegal, serious criminals would still have them.

But wouldn't that include criminal organizations that tend to commit the "intra-criminal crime", that might result in innocent casualties that you alluded to earlier?

But if only criminals had guns, then merely possessing a gun would be enough to throw someone in jail. You wouldn't need to wait for them to misuse it.

But what about areas where guns are illegal right now, and yet there is gun violence (ie, Washington D.C.)? Or where guns are illegal for criminals to own in the first place (ie, convicted felons). By your argument, wouldn't the police have already descended in mass raids and arrested everyone for weapons posession?

From your argument, it sounds like you believe that guns are the only thing keeping things from descending into anarchy.

My main reasons for being "pro-gun", as it were, are:

1. Every law-abiding citizen has the right to self-defense, especially since the police have no legal responsibility to ensure or safeguard your personal safety. (This makes sense if you think about it - otherwise police departments everywhere would be buried under lawsuits for not getting to a crime on time, etc.) The JPFO has a rather interesting take on this. Mind you, the right of self defense does not necessa

Those are the twin goals of Wisconsin-based Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO). Founded by Jews and initially aimed at educating the Jewish community about the historical evils that Jews have suffered when they have been disarmed, JPFO has always welcomed persons of all religious beliefs who share a common goal of opposing and reversing victim disarmament policies while advancing liberty for all.

That said, the ACLU is fighting a front of the war to protect our civil liberties. We have the NRA (among others) to worry about gun ownership rights. I haven't heard of any cases where the ACLU tried to promote gun control--they just don't protect 2nd Amendment rights. The good the ACLU does outweighs their lack of support on the gun issue, for me.

JPFO

For those who don't get it, this is exactly why background checks are equivalent to registration. And registration is the first step toward confiscation.

See http://jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm for an example of how registration (by any name) leads to tyranny.

-Peter

Weird, I always thought the first amendment was more "powerful" than the second one...

Then apparently you haven't put much thought into it.

When someone attempts to subvert your other rights like, for example, your right to vote. What makes you think that these same people won't try to subvert your right to free speech?

It's your right to keep and bear arms that protects those other rights. Some people say "That'll never happen in America. Well, the truth is that it has.

The Battle Of Athens is a great example of how corruption in the goverment can be stopped by an armed populace.

LK

Nice slogan, but what happens if someone is making war on you? Go ask the Jews whether they liked being disarmed.

From "Full Metal Jacket":

"Paris Island, South Carolina. The United States Marine Corp Recruit Depot. An eight week college for the phony tough and the crazy brave."

Killing people sucks.

If guns stopped people imposing their will, how come Europe got overrun by the Germans? They even had ARMIES to fight the Nazis, not just the odd accountant with a shotgun. If guns were that good, there would be no war.

Bzzt.

Europe didn't have much in the way of armies, and most of europe that was overrun had very few guns in civilian hands. Remember, the previous war was "the war to end all wars" and most of the european armies and weapons had been destroyed during the intervening years to get them away and keep them away from civilians (all in the same false hope of safety you espouse today).

Then the German's came, and the parts of europe that did not get overrun, begged and pleaded for and then accepted and used guns donated by Americans, to keep the german forces at bay (and then destroyed those guns as well, the freakin' idiots).

And of course, the history of gun control matches the history of totalitarianism and genocide.

sdb

As Recently As 1946, American Citizens Were
Forced To Take Up Arms As A Last Resort
Against Corrupt Government Officials.

In fact, the "sporting purpose" concept originated in a Nazi gun-control law from the 1930's (details at Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership).

This is why we must consider: who had something to gain from the disasterous crimes of September 11th? Obviously not Osama Bin Laden, who would net no financial windfall from the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Although he has loudly applauded the "terrorist" acts of September 11th and even tacitly taken credit for them, there is no reason to believe that he is anything more than a bandwagon jumper. Being blamed for the destruction of the World Trade Center has done more for his image than any amount of militant Islamic rhetoric.

But if not Bin Laden, then who?

It so happens that on December 11th, "coincidentally" 2 months after the tragedy, Credit Suisse First Boston quietly agreed to pay out US$100 million in order to settle an 18 month old investigation into its handling of certain high-profile technology IPOs (Initial Public Offerings). One of the most controversial amongst these being the IPO of VA Linux Systems, Inc. (LNUX) .

VA Linux Systems, Inc., now known as VA Software, is widely derided as a poster child of the dot-com bust, though inexplicably still in business. At the time of the IPO, VA Linux (Software) shares opened trading at nearly 10 times their $30 offer price, closing the first day of trading at $239.25. This meteoric rise made many early investors rich, strangely on account of a company which purports to sell a hobbyist operating system which can be obtained for free on the Internet. "The VA Linux initial public offering is a prime example of market manipulation in an IPO by investment banks, their customers and the issuing firm," said Steven Schulman, a partner in the law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, which specializes in filing shareholder suits.

"Because certain favored customers of the investment banks agreed to buy shares in a new issue at inflated prices in the aftermarket (in return for getting an allocation of the shares at the initial offering price) the share prices to which the IPO eventually soared were actually driven by artificial market forces," continues Schulman.

But what does the VA Software (Linux) IPO have to do with the attacks on September 11th, and what has that to do with the Credit Suisse settlement? Well, considering that VA Linux (Software) got CSFB into trouble in the first place, it stands to reason that the VA Linux (Software) Board of Directors were complicit in the stock fraud from beginning to end. As the investigation progressed against CSFB, the unscrupulous VA Software/Linux executives, their pockets bulging with filthy lucre plundered from trusting, hard-working investors, must have realized that their days in the country club were numbered if the SEC discovered their wrongdoings.

The SEC, or Securities Exchange Commission, is a federal regulatory agency, and cannot be bribed. Therefore, with a possible stint in federal prison looming large, Larry Augustin and the rest of the crooks, including outspoken gun violence advocate Eric S. Raymond, decided to undertake more active means to halt the investigation.

The Plan

It so happened that all the evidence in the CSFB/VA Linux investigation was held at the SEC Northeast Regi

When you have a crime to investigate, and you have no suspects, where do you start? Obviously you begin by looking at the person or persons who have the most to gain by perpetrating the crime.

This is why we must consider: who had something to gain from the disasterous crimes of September 11th? Obviously not Osama Bin Laden, who would net no financial windfall from the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Although he has loudly applauded the "terrorist" acts of September 11th and even tacitly taken credit for them, there is no reason to believe that he is anything more than a bandwagon jumper. Being blamed for the destruction of the World Trade Center has done more for his image than any amount of militant Islamic rhetoric.

But if not Bin Laden, then who?

It so happens that on December 11th, "coincidentally" 2 months after the tragedy, Credit Suisse First Boston quietly agreed to pay out US$100 million in order to settle an 18 month old investigation into its handling of certain high-profile technology IPOs (Initial Public Offerings). One of the most controversial amongst these being the IPO of VA Linux Systems, Inc. (LNUX) .

VA Linux Systems, Inc., now known as VA Software, is widely derided as a poster child of the dot-com bust, though inexplicably still in business. At the time of the IPO, VA Linux (Software) shares opened trading at nearly 10 times their $30 offer price, closing the first day of trading at $239.25. This meteoric rise made many early investors rich, strangely on account of a company which purports to sell a hobbyist operating system which can be obtained for free on the Internet. "The VA Linux initial public offering is a prime example of market manipulation in an IPO by investment banks, their customers and the issuing firm," said Steven Schulman, a partner in the law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, which specializes in filing shareholder suits.

"Because certain favored customers of the investment banks agreed to buy shares in a new issue at inflated prices in the aftermarket (in return for getting an allocation of the shares at the initial offering price) the share prices to which the IPO eventually soared were actually driven by artificial market forces," continues Schulman.

But what does the VA Software (Linux) IPO have to do with the attacks on September 11th, and what has that to do with the Credit Suisse settlement? Well, considering that VA Linux (Software) got CSFB into trouble in the first place, it stands to reason that the VA Linux (Software) Board of Directors were complicit in the stock fraud from beginning to end. As the investigation progressed against CSFB, the unscrupulous VA Software/Linux executives, their pockets bulging with filthy lucre plundered from trusting, hard-working investors, must have realized that their days in the country club were numbered if the SEC discovered their wrongdoings.

The SEC, or Securities Exchange Commission, is a federal regulatory agency, and cannot be bribed. Therefore, with a possible stint in federal prison looming large, Larry Augustin and the rest of the crooks, including outspoken gun violence advocate Eric S. Raymond, decided to undertake more active means to halt the investigation.

The Plan

It so happened that all the evidence in the CSFB/

I suggest you post a sign on your front lawn saying that you refuse to own guns

If, for instance, the democratic process was subverted in some way, We The People were expected to take up our arms and restore proper government.

And it has happened. More than once.

The poster-child for this is the Battle of Athens, where returning WW II veterans overthrew a pair of political machines by force of arms.

Another less reputable example is the San Francisco Vigilance Committee's "Second Clensing" in which the cleaned out the Barbary Coast political machine.

But there are plenty more.

Note that "law and order" is just the institutionalization of vigilantism, with checks against misapplying penalties in the heat of the moment. If the instution breaks down, the people often will take the power back into their own hands, from which (according to the US's legal theories) it originates.

People in the US are normally loathe to do this except under extreme circumstances, and generally use their power to restore the institutions to proper function rather than replace them outright. (Even the Revolution started as a battle to recover what the colonists perceived as the "Rights of Free Englishmen")

Gun registries don't kill gun ownership, governments do.

Not to mention that in any situation where the U.S. government had the will and power to begin seizing firearms, firearms would be useless as a tool of resistance, with or without a registry. Ask David Koresh.

At the risk of provoking an invocation of Godwin's Law, please read the proud history of using gun registries as a means of implementing "public safety" before you become to enamored of the idea.

-Peter

Because the NRA is so weak & compromizing, more gun control gets passed. It is much more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, resulting in more death.

The original guy should name JPFO as a beneficiary instead.

In summary, your post looks like a well-disguised NRA troll. You say: restricting what individuals can own isn't a panacea for terrorism, hence it is useless. The truth is that, yes, stupid restrictions like for rocket motors will be ineffective, but that this has no real implications of restricting e.g gun ownership.

The truth (wow, now there's a concept) is that governments have disarmed their victims since time immemorial, with the disarmament of the Jews just before the Holocaust being one of the more egregious examples of this trend. Consider the disarmament of 2.5 million Cambodians by Pol Pot as another example.

Don't troll for HCI by accusing someone else of trolling for the NRA.

FYI, I am a former member of HCI, would never even think of becoming a member of the NRA (the gun control arm of the Republican Party), and am a proud charter member of the JPFO.

When you have a crime to investigate, and you have no suspects, where do you start? Obviously you begin by looking at the person or persons who have the most to gain by perpetrating the crime.

This is why we must consider: who had something to gain from the disasterous crimes of September 11th? Obviously not Osama Bin Laden, who would net no financial windfall from the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Although he has loudly applauded the "terrorist" acts of September 11th and even tacitly taken credit for them, there is no reason to believe that he is anything more than a bandwagon jumper. Being blamed for the destruction of the World Trade Center has done more for his image than any amount of militant Islamic rhetoric.

But if not Bin Laden, then who?

It so happens that on December 11th, "coincidentally" 2 months after the tragedy, Credit Suisse First Boston quietly agreed to pay out US$100 million in order to settle an 18 month old investigation into its handling of certain high-profile technology IPOs (Initial Public Offerings). One of the most controversial amongst these being the IPO of VA Linux Systems, Inc. (LNUX) .

VA Linux Systems, Inc., now known as VA Software, is widely derided as a poster child of the dot-com bust, though inexplicably still in business. At the time of the IPO, VA Linux (Software) shares opened trading at nearly 10 times their $30 offer price, closing the first day of trading at $239.25. This meteoric rise made many early investors rich, strangely on account of a company which purports to sell a hobbyist operating system which can be obtained for free on the Internet. "The VA Linux initial public offering is a prime example of market manipulation in an IPO by investment banks, their customers and the issuing firm," said Steven Schulman, a partner in the law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, which specializes in filing shareholder suits.

"Because certain favored customers of the investment banks agreed to buy shares in a new issue at inflated prices in the aftermarket (in return for getting an allocation of the shares at the initial offering price) the share prices to which the IPO eventually soared were actually driven by artificial market forces," continues Schulman.

But what does the VA Software (Linux) IPO have to do with the attacks on September 11th, and what has that to do with the Credit Suisse settlement? Well, considering that VA Linux (Software) got CSFB into trouble in the first place, it stands to reason that the VA Linux (Software) Board of Directors were complicit in the stock fraud from beginning to end. As the investigation progressed against CSFB, the unscrupulous VA Software/Linux executives, their pockets bulging with filthy lucre plundered from trusting, hard-working investors, must have realized that their days in the country club were numbered if the SEC discovered their wrongdoings.

The SEC, or Securities Exchange Commission, is a federal regulatory agency, and cannot be bribed. Therefore, with a possible stint in federal prison looming large, Larry Augustin and the rest of the crooks, including outspoken gun violence advocate Eric S. Raymond, decided to undertake more active means to halt the investigation.

The Plan

It so happened that all the evidence in the CSFB/VA Linux investigation was held at the SEC Northeast Regional Office in Manhattan. More specifically, 7 World Trade Center, Suite 1300. The board decided that a simple burglary or arson attempt would not be satisfactory to destroy the evidence; anything so simple had a significant chance of being botched, and regardless of success would leave too many witnesses or living accomplices.

It was then that Eric S. Raymond suggested something he had read in a book by Tom Clancy. Crashing two planes into the World Trade Center Plaza would guarantee the destruction of the SEC offices, killing the operatives and possibly a number of SEC investigators at the same time. The plan seemed flawless, and would cost little more than the price of a few plane tickets. In a secret session, the board voted unanimously in favour of Eric's suggestion, and began to put it into action.

VA Software/Linux, at the time of planning the attacks, had no shortage of H1-B visa workers, who they employed for the purpose of writing and improving hacking, encryption, and other terrorist tools for the Linux operating system. It had been decided that a hand-picked few of these foreign H1-B workers would be used as the "patsies" in the operation. A contest was held, and the most zealotous Linux advocates were chosen for this secret assignment, direct from the board of directors. They accepted their mission after being told that, if successful, it would guarantee the adoption of Linux in the desktop market.

Alan Cox was brought into the fold to provide some planning and logistics for the mission. It was he who determined that since there was no adequate flight simulator software for Linux, the patsies would need to train at a flight school in order to pull off the plan successfully. It was also his idea to hijack a third and fourth plane for the purpose of crashing them into Washington D.C., to express his extreme rage over the DMCA, or Digital Millenium Copyright Act. The board of directors agreed with this addition to the plan in the hopes that it would help divert attention from the purpose of the WTC attack.

The H1-B workers were given false identities by using Linux hacking tools. Once they had attended the necessary flight training, they stayed at the Massachusetts home of Richard M. Stallman for a brief "faith building" retreat. During this time spent at the house of Stallman, between the nauseating stench of patchouli, Stallman's incessant, pitiful recorder playing, and Stallman's droning seminars on the grammatical and syntactical accuracy of various statements by Microsoft representatives, the H1-B workers were effectively hypnotized to the point that they were ready to lay down their lives for Free Software. It was then that they departed for Boston's Logan International Airport to board the planes.

(The preceding inside information has been obtained from a credible source close to the VA Linux/Software Board of Directors. He/she is in hiding for obvious reasons in light of this damning evidence, but has presented hard, physical evidence of VA Software/Linux's complicity in the events of 9/11 to federal investigators.)

Troll 68 of 208 from the annals of the Troll Library .

If you want an uncompromising political group, there's JPFO - Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. Or there's Gun Owners of America, though they also like to push the pro-hunting agenda.

I would have prefered to email you, but . . .

Anyway, that's a really great post. Are you a member of the JPFO? They are the greatest defenders of the Bill of Right that we have, AFAICT.

Also, are you aware that your next post will be your 2^10th? Make it count!

-Peter

That said, what in the hell do you need an assault rifle for?

How do you define 'assualt rifle'? Do you mean something like the AR-15, a single-shot carbine that shoots 5.56mm (.223) ammo and whose outer body is patterned on the M-16? Well, target shooting with them is a lot of fun...

Most the anti-gun people are after the insane automatic high-power weapons.

Unless you happen to live in Washington, DC, New York, California, Australia, England, and most of the rest of Europe...

No one is saying you can't have a hunting rifle

Except for wackos like the one in California

Nor do I see a problem with having to register if you own a rifle or handgun.

"This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."
--Adolph Hitler, 1935

Never in the history of the world, has gun registration NOT led to confiscation and democide.

I have never seen a valid argument for this gun nut crap.

Here's one for you:

"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

You're thinking of Western movies.

Shootouts did happen in the old West, particularly between criminals and law enforcement (think O.K. Corral). BUT THEY HAPPEN IN THE MODERN WEST (and the rest of the country) TO THIS DAY. So what's your point?

When Fla. started handing out CCWs people didn't start shooting eachother on the highways, but the rampant car-jacking bullshit stopped.

A bunch of New Englanders didn't defeat King George's army by flipping them off.

BTW, see this article.

At the risk of causing someone to invoke Godwin's law, there is a very real historical example of the kind of "safety" that gun registration gets you. There is a great article at the JPFO's website that is better than any explanation I could give.

-Peter

At the risk of causing someone to invoke Godwin's law, there is a very real historical example of the kind of "safety" that gun registration gets you. There is a great article at the JPFO's website that is better than any explanation I could give.

-Peter

I'd say it's a safe bet that at least 80% of their money comes from gun manufacturers

Sounds like free money to me. Where do I collect? Almost, if not all, of NRA money comes from individuals.

I'm not one of them. I prefer Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

When you have a crime to investigate, and you have no suspects, where do you start? Obviously you begin by looking at the person or persons who have the most to gain by perpetrating the crime.

This is why we must consider: who had something to gain from the disasterous crimes of September 11th? Obviously not Osama Bin Laden, who would net no financial windfall from the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Although he has loudly applauded the "terrorist" acts of September 11th and even tacitly taken credit for them, there is no reason to believe that he is anything more than a bandwagon jumper. Being blamed for the destruction of the World Trade Center has done more for his image than any amount of militant Islamic rhetoric.

But if not Bin Laden, then who?

It so happens that on December 11th, "coincidentally" 2 months after the tragedy, Credit Suisse First Boston quietly agreed to pay out US$100 million in order to settle an 18 month old investigation into its handling of certain high-profile technology IPOs (Initial Public Offerings). One of the most controversial amongst these being the IPO of VA Linux Systems, Inc. (LNUX) .

VA Linux Systems, Inc., now known as VA Software, is widely derided as a poster child of the dot-com bust, though inexplicably still in business. At the time of the IPO, VA Linux (Software) shares opened trading at nearly 10 times their $30 offer price, closing the first day of trading at $239.25. This meteoric rise made many early investors rich, strangely on account of a company which purports to sell a hobbyist operating system which can be obtained for free on the Internet. "The VA Linux initial public offering is a prime example of market manipulation in an IPO by investment banks, their customers and the issuing firm," said Steven Schulman, a partner in the law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, which specializes in filing shareholder suits.

"Because certain favored customers of the investment banks agreed to buy shares in a new issue at inflated prices in the aftermarket (in return for getting an allocation of the shares at the initial offering price) the share prices to which the IPO eventually soared were actually driven by artificial market forces," continues Schulman.

But what does the VA Software (Linux) IPO have to do with the attacks on September 11th, and what has that to do with the Credit Suisse settlement? Well, considering that VA Linux (Software) got CSFB into trouble in the first place, it stands to reason that the VA Linux (Software) Board of Directors were complicit in the stock fraud from beginning to end. As the investigation progressed against CSFB, the unscrupulous VA Software/Linux executives, their pockets bulging with filthy lucre plundered from trusting, hard-working investors, must have realized that their days in the country club were numbered if the SEC discovered their wrongdoings.

The SEC, or Securities Exchange Commission, is a federal regulatory agency, and cannot be bribed. Therefore, with a possible stint in federal prison looming large, Larry Augustin and the rest of the crooks, including outspoken gun violence advocate Eric S. Raymond, decided to undertake more active means to halt the investigation.

The Plan

It so happened that all the evidence in the CSFB/VA Linux investigation was held at the SEC Northeast Regional Office in Manhattan. More specifically, 7 World Trade Center, Suite 1300. The board decided that a simple burglary or arson attempt would not be satisfactory to destroy the evidence; anything so simple had a significant chance of being botched, and regardless of success would leave too many witnesses or living accomplices.

It was then that Eric S. Raymond suggested something he had read in a book by Tom Clancy. Crashing two planes into the World Trade Center Plaza would guarantee the destruction of the SEC offices, killing the operatives and possibly a number of SEC investigators at the same time. The plan seemed flawless, and would cost little more than the price of a few plane tickets. In a secret session, the board voted unanimously in favour of Eric's suggestion, and began to put it into action.

VA Software/Linux, at the time of planning the attacks, had no shortage of H1-B visa workers, who they employed for the purpose of writing and improving hacking, encryption, and other terrorist tools for the Linux operating system. It had been decided that a hand-picked few of these foreign H1-B workers would be used as the "patsies" in the operation. A contest was held, and the most zealotous Linux advocates were chosen for this secret assignment, direct from the board of directors. They accepted their mission after being told that, if successful, it would guarantee the adoption of Linux in the desktop market.

Alan Cox was brought into the fold to provide some planning and logistics for the mission. It was he who determined that since there was no adequate flight simulator software for Linux, the patsies would need to train at a flight school in order to pull off the plan successfully. It was also his idea to hijack a third and fourth plane for the purpose of crashing them into Washington D.C., to express his extreme rage over the DMCA, or Digital Millenium Copyright Act. The board of directors agreed with this addition to the plan in the hopes that it would help divert attention from the purpose of the WTC attack.

The H1-B workers were given false identities by using Linux hacking tools. Once they had attended the necessary flight training, they stayed at the Massachusetts home of Richard M. Stallman for a brief "faith building" retreat. During this time spent at the house of Stallman, between the nauseating stench of patchouli, Stallman's incessant, pitiful recorder playing, and Stallman's droning seminars on the grammatical and syntactical accuracy of various statements by Microsoft representatives, the H1-B workers were effectively hypnotized to the point that they were ready to lay down their lives for Free Software. It was then that they departed for Boston's Logan International Airport to board the planes.

(The preceding inside information has been obtained from a credible source close to the VA Linux/Software Board of Directors. He/she is in hiding for obvious reasons in light of this damning evidence, but has presented hard, physical evidence of VA Software/Linux's complicity in the events of 9/11 to federal investigators.)

From the annals of the Troll Library .

The other half is because people have ignorantly abrogated their responsibility for prosecuting their own loss.

If just ONE of those companies that "lost billions" had prosecuted the perp themselves, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

But no, we sit here and decry how "law enforcement is overworked" to do all the prosecuting for us. And in those places where medical service is also government provided? Gee, the same discussion, how "medical providers are overworked".

Maybe the pattern this obvious to me is obvious to others. Has anyone who claims to have lost money gone after a virus writer? Anyone? Any company? Any organization?

The negative effects of abrogating your physical security to "law enforcement" is well known. There is very little argument that even the best firewall does not eliminate the requirement that individual PC's and servers be individually hardened.

Yet with all this emphasis on distributed defense, there is not a distributed offence against these virus writers?

Bob-

I Wish I had written it. Enjoy!

As an enlightened, modern parent, I try to be as involved as possible in the lives of my six children. I encourage them to join team sports. I attend their teen parties with them to ensure no drinking or alcohol is on the premises. I keep a fatherly eye on the CDs they listen to and the shows they watch, the company they keep and the books they read. You could say I'm a model parent. My children have never failed to make me proud, and I can say without the slightest embellishment that I have the finest family in the USA.

Two years ago, my wife Carol and I decided that our children's education would not be complete without some grounding in modern computers. To this end, we bought our children a brand new Compaq to learn with. The kids had a lot of fun using the handful of application programs we'd bought, such as Adobe's Photoshop and Microsoft's Word, and my wife and I were pleased that our gift was received so well. Our son Peter was most entranced by the device, and became quite a pro at surfing the net. When Peter began to spend whole days on the machine, I became concerned, but Carol advised me to calm down, and that it was only a passing phase. I was content to bow to her experience as a mother, until our youngest daughter, Cindy, charged into the living room one night to blurt out: "Peter is a computer hacker!"

As you can imagine, I was amazed. A computer hacker in my own house! I began to monitor my son's habits, to make certain that Cindy wasn't just telling stories, as she is prone to doing at times.

After a few days of investigation, and some research into computer hacking, I confronted Peter with the evidence. I'm afraid to say, this was the only time I have ever been truly disappointed in one of my children. We raised them to be honest and to have integrity, and Peter betrayed the principles we tried to encourage in him, when he refused point blank to admit to his activities. His denials continued for hours, and in the end, I was left with no choice but to ban him from using the computer until he is old enough to be responsible for his actions.

After going through this ordeal with my own family, I was left pondering how I could best help others in similar situations. I'd gained a lot of knowledge over those few days regarding hackers. It's only right that I provide that information to other parents, in the hope that they will be able to tell if their children are being drawn into the world of hacking. Perhaps other parents will be able to steer their sons back onto the straight and narrow before extreme measures need to be employed.

To this end, I have decided to publish the top ten signs that your son is a hacker. I advise any parents to read this list carefully and if their son matches the profile, they should take action. A smart parent will first try to reason with their son, before resorting to groundings, or even spanking. I pride myself that I have never had to spank a child, and I hope this guide will help other parents to put a halt to their son's misbehaviour before a spanking becomes necessary.

1. Has your son asked you to change ISPs?

Most American families use trusted and responsible Internet Service Providers, such as AOL. These providers have a strict "No Hacking" policy, and take careful measures to ensure that your internet experience is enjoyable, educational and above all legal. If your child is becoming a hacker, one of his first steps will be to request a change to a more hacker friendly provider.

I would advise all parents to refuse this request. One of the reasons your son is interested in switching providers is to get away from AOL's child safety filter. This filter is vital to any parent who wants his son to enjoy the internet without the endangering him through exposure to "adult" content. It is best to stick with the protection AOL provides, rather than using a home-based solution. If your son is becoming a hacker, he will be able to circumvent any home-based measures with surprising ease, using information gleaned from various hacker sites.

2. Are you finding programs on your computer that you don't remember installing?

Your son will probably try to install some hacker software. He may attempt to conceal the presence of the software in some way, but you can usually find any new programs by reading through the programs listed under "Install/Remove Programs" in your control panel. Popular hacker software includes "Comet Cursor", "Bonzi Buddy" and "Flash".

The best option is to confront your son with the evidence, and force him to remove the offending programs. He will probably try to install the software again, but you will be able to tell that this is happening, if your machine offers to "download" one of the hacker applications. If this happens, it is time to give your son a stern talking to, and possibly consider punishing him with a grounding.

3. Has your child asked for new hardware?

Computer hackers are often limited by conventional computer hardware. They may request "faster" video cards, and larger hard drives, or even more memory. If your son starts requesting these devices, it is possible that he has a legitimate need. You can best ensure that you are buying legal, trustworthy hardware by only buying replacement parts from your computer's manufacturer.

If your son has requested a new "processor" from a company called "AMD", this is genuine cause for alarm. AMD is a third-world based company who make inferior, "knock-off" copies of American processor chips. They use child labor extensively in their third world sweatshops, and they deliberately disable the security features that American processor makers, such as Intel, use to prevent hacking. AMD chips are never sold in stores, and you will most likely be told that you have to order them from internet sites. Do not buy this chip! This is one request that you must refuse your son, if you are to have any hope of raising him well.

4. Does your child read hacking manuals?

If you pay close attention to your son's reading habits, as I do, you will be able to determine a great deal about his opinions and hobbies. Children are at their most impressionable in the teenage years. Any father who has had a seventeen year old daughter attempt to sneak out on a date wearing make up and perfume is well aware of the effect that improper influences can have on inexperienced minds.

There are, unfortunately, many hacking manuals available in bookshops today. A few titles to be on the lookout for are: "Snow Crash" and "Cryptonomicon" by Neal Stephenson; "Neuromancer" by William Gibson; "Programming with Perl" by Timothy O'Reilly; "Geeks" by Jon Katz; "The Hacker Crackdown" by Bruce Sterling; "Microserfs" by Douglas Coupland; "Hackers" by Steven Levy; and "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" by Eric S. Raymond.

If you find any of these hacking manuals in your child's possession, confiscate them immediately. You should also petition local booksellers to remove these titles from their shelves. You may meet with some resistance at first, but even booksellers have to bow to community pressure.

5. How much time does your child spend using the computer each day?

If your son spends more than thirty minutes each day on the computer, he may be using it to DOS other peoples sites. DOSing involves gaining access to the "command prompt" on other people's machines, and using it to tie up vital internet services. This can take up to eight hours. If your son is doing this, he is breaking the law, and you should stop him immediately. The safest policy is to limit your children's access to the computer to a maximum of forty-five minutes each day.

6. Does your son use Quake?

Quake is an online virtual reality used by hackers. It is a popular meeting place and training ground, where they discuss hacking and train in the use of various firearms. Many hackers develop anti-social tendencies due to the use of this virtual world, and it may cause erratic behaviour at home and at school.

If your son is using Quake, you should make hime understand that this is not acceptable to you. You should ensure all the firearms in your house are carefully locked away, and have trigger locks installed. You should also bring your concerns to the attention of his school.

7. Is your son becoming argumentative and surly in his social behaviour?

As a child enters the electronic world of hacking, he may become disaffected with the real world. He may lose the ability to control his actions, or judge the rightness or wrongness of a course of behaviour. This will manifest itself soonest in the way he treats others. Those whom he disagrees with will be met with scorn, bitterness, and even foul language. He may utter threats of violence of a real or electronic nature.

Even when confronted, your son will probably find it difficult to talk about this problem to you. He will probably claim that there is no problem, and that you are imagining things. He may tell you that it is you who has the problem, and you should "back off" and "stop smothering him." Do not allow yourself to be deceived. You are the only chance your son has, even if he doesn't understand the situation he is in. Keep trying to get through to him, no matter how much he retreats into himself.

8. Is your son obsessed with "Lunix"?

BSD, Lunix, Debian and Mandrake are all versions of an illegal hacker operation system, invented by a Soviet computer hacker named Linyos Torovoltos, before the Russians lost the Cold War. It is based on a program called "xenix", which was written by Microsoft for the US government. These programs are used by hackers to break into other people's computer systems to steal credit card numbers. They may also be used to break into people's stereos to steal their music, using the "mp3" program. Torovoltos is a notorious hacker, responsible for writing many hacker programs, such as "telnet", which is used by hackers to connect to machines on the internet without using a telephone.

Your son may try to install "lunix" on your hard drive. If he is careful, you may not notice its presence, however, lunix is a capricious beast, and if handled incorrectly, your son may damage your computer, and even break it completely by deleting Windows, at which point you will have to have your computer repaired by a professional.

If you see the word "LILO" during your windows startup (just after you turn the machine on), your son has installed lunix. In order to get rid of it, you will have to send your computer back to the manufacturer, and have them fit a new hard drive. Lunix is extremely dangerous software, and cannot be removed without destroying part of your hard disk surface.

9. Has your son radically changed his appearance?

If your son has undergone a sudden change in his style of dress, you may have a hacker on your hands. Hackers tend to dress in bright, day-glo colors. They may wear baggy pants, bright colored shirts and spiky hair dyed in bright colors to match their clothes. They may take to carrying "glow-sticks" and some wear pacifiers around their necks. (I have no idea why they do this) There are many such hackers in schools today, and your son may have started to associate with them. If you notice that your son's group of friends includes people dressed like this, it is time to think about a severe curfew, to protect him from dangerous influences.

10. Is your son struggling academically?

If your son is failing courses in school, or performing poorly on sports teams, he may be involved in a hacking group, such as the infamous "Otaku" hacker association. Excessive time spent on the computer, communicating with his fellow hackers may cause temporary damage to the eyes and brain, from the electromagnetic radiation. This will cause his marks to slip dramatically, particularly in difficult subjects such as Math, and Chemistry. In extreme cases, over-exposure to computer radiation can cause schizophrenia, meningitis and other psychological diseases. Also, the reduction in exercise may cause him to lose muscle mass, and even to start gaining weight. For the sake of your child's mental and physical health, you must put a stop to his hacking, and limit his computer time drastically.

I encourage all parents to read through this guide carefully. Your child's future may depend upon it. Hacking is an illegal and dangerous activity, that may land your child in prison, and tear your family apart. It cannot be taken too seriously.

How is gun control racist? No AC replies please.

Not True in the case of the Warsaw Ghetto [or American Revolution - grin] ... all arms were STOLEN from the Nazis. Too bad law-abiding Germans [especially Jews] could not LEGALLY own "assault" weapons before Hitler came to power. Of course, this is the problem ... "law-abiding" citizens will do what their good government tells them to do. Then when a bad government takes control (e.g. Hitler, Algerian Islamic Facists, Allende/Shining Path & Chile, Stalin, Castro, Cambodia, ...) it is too late. Off to the gas chambers, gulags, reeducation camps, killing fields you go ... happy happy joy joy.

First, we know that the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, when they finally turned to armed resistance, succeeded in holding off the Nazi war machine for nearly a month. These were civilians running an urban guerilla resistance -- using a relatively small number of guns and ammo smuggled in or taken from killed Nazis. In this case, the Warsaw Ghetto defenders damaged the Nazi effort -- and if that had been multiplied over the countryside, it would have meant more damage to the Nazis, and possibly a change in Nazi policy. (See Jon Guttman's article, "Genocide Delayed", in March 2000 issue of World War II magazine, available on line at: HERE [thehistorynet.com] and HERE [jpfo.org]

Second, Stephen Halbrook has written a book recently showing that the Nazis did not invade Switzerland in large measure because the Swiss citizens were all armed with military weapons, were trained, and enjoyed a hilly terrain that would benefit the defenders. In this case, the threat of armed resistance deterred the Nazis. (Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II, Sarpedon Publishers, 2000)

The above copied and pasted from Ask The Rabbi: Should they have fought back? [jpfo.org]

BTW, I can neither confirm nor deny whether or not I own an "assault" rifle (aka NOT a shotgun). Perhaps you too should have the option/choice of making such a statement. What if ALL your neighbors could say the same thing? What if every Jew in the Warsaw Ghetto could and DID own an "assault rifle"?

Not True in the case of the Warsaw Ghetto [or American Revolution - grin] ... all arms were STOLEN from the Nazis. Too bad law-abiding Germans [especially Jews] could not LEGALLY own "assault" weapons before Hitler came to power. Of course, this is the problem ... "law-abiding" citizens will do what their good government tells them to do. Then when a bad government takes control (e.g. Hitler, Algerian Islamic Facists, Allende/Shining Path & Chile, Stalin, Castro, Cambodia, ...) it is too late. Off to the gas chambers, gulags, reeducation camps, killing fields you go ... happy happy joy joy.

First, we know that the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, when they finally turned to armed resistance, succeeded in holding off the Nazi war machine for nearly a month. These were civilians running an urban guerilla resistance -- using a relatively small number of guns and ammo smuggled in or taken from killed Nazis. In this case, the Warsaw Ghetto defenders damaged the Nazi effort -- and if that had been multiplied over the countryside, it would have meant more damage to the Nazis, and possibly a change in Nazi policy. (See Jon Guttman's article, "Genocide Delayed", in March 2000 issue of World War II magazine, available on line at: HERE [thehistorynet.com] and HERE [jpfo.org]

Second, Stephen Halbrook has written a book recently showing that the Nazis did not invade Switzerland in large measure because the Swiss citizens were all armed with military weapons, were trained, and enjoyed a hilly terrain that would benefit the defenders. In this case, the threat of armed resistance deterred the Nazis. (Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II, Sarpedon Publishers, 2000)

The above copied and pasted from Ask The Rabbi: Should they have fought back? [jpfo.org]

BTW, I can neither confirm nor deny whether or not I own an "assault" rifle (aka NOT a shotgun). Perhaps you too should have the option/choice of making such a statement. What if ALL your neighbors could say the same thing? What if every Jew in the Warsaw Ghetto could and DID own an "assault rifle"?

Second, Stephen Halbrook has written a book recently showing that the Nazis did not invade Switzerland in large measure because the Swiss citizens were all armed with military weapons, were trained, and enjoyed a hilly terrain that would benefit the defenders. In this case, the threat of armed resistance deterred the Nazis. (Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II, Sarpedon Publishers, 2000)

The above copied and pasted from Ask The Rabbi: Should they have fought back?

BTW, I can neither confirm nor deny whether or not I own an "assault" rifle (aka NOT a shotgun). Perhaps you too should have the option/choice of making such a statement. What if ALL your neighbors could say the same thing? What if every Jew in the Warsaw Ghetto could and DID own an "assault rifle"?

Second, Stephen Halbrook has written a book recently showing that the Nazis did not invade Switzerland in large measure because the Swiss citizens were all armed with military weapons, were trained, and enjoyed a hilly terrain that would benefit the defenders. In this case, the threat of armed resistance deterred the Nazis. (Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II, Sarpedon Publishers, 2000)

The above copied and pasted from Ask The Rabbi: Should they have fought back?

BTW, I can neither confirm nor deny whether or not I own an "assault" rifle (aka NOT a shotgun). Perhaps you too should have the option/choice of making such a statement. What if ALL your neighbors could say the same thing? What if every Jew in the Warsaw Ghetto could and DID own an "assault rifle"?

"We must give up some of our freedoms to help combat terrorism."

The predictable words -- and actions -- are beginning to spew from political, military, and law enforcement officials and their supporters. For safety, for security, for the greater good, they somberly tell us, we must comply with their agendas. To be protected from terrorism we must submit to more restrictions -- on our ability to travel, our freedom from arbitrary searches, on the privacy of our communications, on our right to bear arms, on our ability to conduct business hidden from the prying eyes of government.

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) has called for a global prohibition on encryption products without backdoors for government surveillance.

Travel regulators have banned knives on planes. (Does this mean even the pilots can't protect themselves and passengers against hijackers?)

ISPs who were reluctant to cooperate with the FBI's invasive Carnivore program are now rushing to comply.

The Senate has, in the wake of Black Tuesday, voted to increase the FBI's authority to tap the phones of anyone suspected of terrorism. As we've seen by all these other random restrictions, we are ALL suspects in the eyes of the U.S. government.

Perhaps most ominously of all, the Washington Post quoted House Democrat Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO) as making the self-contradictory, but entirely predictable statement, "We're in a new world where we have to rebalance freedom and security. We can't take away people's civil liberties . . . but we're not going to have all the openness and freedom we have had." The Post then went on to describe how every war or crisis of the last 100 years has been use to increase government power -- often in the most draconian ways. More Data Here Freelance supporters of the Surveillance State are rushing to urge everyone to comply. One liberal talk show host responded to callers who complained that Big Brother policies at airports were a problem, "Big Brother is the only thing holding us together!"

He offered no evidence to show how Big Brother made us safe on Tuesday, September 11.

WE MUST THINK FREE, NOT PATRIOTICALLY JERK OUR KNEES

Soon we may be at war. And as always at such times, we'll be expected to "pull together," "do what our leaders tell us is necessary," and sacrifice more freedom in the name of "safety and security" or patriotism. And, as the reality of the Day of Horror seeps in, who doesn't feel an urge to strike back, to "get behind our government," to "show those murdering bastards they can't push Americans around," and to "do whatever it takes to defend the greatest country on earth"? -- even if that means sacrificing individual liberty to "the cause."

Whatever happens from here on out, we need to remember that Big Brother is NOT holding us together -- that he never can and never will. We must remember that the kind of restrictions on the liberties of ordinary Americans that were entirely ineffective in preventing the attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001 will not magically prevent future attacks merely because their severity is increased.

What did all of Big Brother's efforts do to prevent Tuesday's slaughter? The violations of freedom we've already been subjected to in the name of safety -- airport x-rays, ID checks, disarmament, body searches, and the whole gamut -- became a sick a joke when the day arrived that we needed them to protect the country against the world's worst criminals. In fact, Daniel Pipes of the Wall Street Journal was quick to point out how the government's reliance on mass eavesdropping and tracking actually diverted resources from more effective anti-terrorism methods, such as actually studying and infiltrating genuine terrorist groups.

Yet now the government proposes a giant national effort to do more of the same -- to impose more ineffective, wasteful, and oppressive mass surveillance and restrictions.

New restrictions on the freedoms of non-violent people will do nothing to make America or the world safer. They'll make us less safe, as well as less free.

There are at least two reasons for this:

THE FIRST is that more restrictions, and more power placed in the hands of government, will simply, in the long run, create more rage and therefore more desire to strike violently. (As we also saw, some restrictions, like those that forbid armed citizens on planes, also make it harder for Americans to protect themselves and their country.)

THE SECOND is something we observed, tragically, though cell phone calls from four doomed, hijacked planes: the fatal passivity and dependence that seems to be becoming the norm in American behavior.

THE PASSIVE, UNTHINKING AMERICAN

It appears now that a handful of heroic passengers on one flight, having learned via telephone that two other hijacked planes had already smashed into the World Trade Center, decided not to allow themselves to be used as weapons of war. These passengers on United Flight 93 attacked the hijackers who were in control of the plane. Doomed in any case, they ended up dying in the woods and fields of rural Pennsylvania, rather than passively allowing their captors to get away with an even more horrendous mass murder.

We also know that, on at least one other flight --American Airlines Flight 77, which smashed into the Pentagon -- passenger Barbara Olson learned from her husband, U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, of the World Trade Center catastrophe. During two separate calls, Mrs. Olson (a well- known author and conservative television commentator) asked her husband what the pilot -- standing next to her in the back of the plane -- should do.

Picture that. Passengers and crew have been herded -- and note that word well, herded -- to the back of the plane. Even the pilot, the leader, the chief decision-maker, does nothing. Can't think what do to. Can't act. Instead of attempting to save their own lives and the lives of others on the ground, what do they do? They expect a federal government official to make the decision for them. THE EVIDENCE SAYS THAT THESE PEOPLE DIDN'T EVEN FEEL EMPOWERED TO DEFEND THEIR OWN LIVES WITHOUT FIRST ASKING THE ADVICE OR PERMISSION OF WASHINGTON, D.C..

And why should we have expected otherwise? Americans have been told repeatedly never to resist crime, always to submit to any demand a thug makes of them. Always go along -- for safety's sake. Go along in order to avoid angering the criminal. We've been told always to submit, as well, to any demand made by anyone who appears to be "in charge." These people on Flight 77 -- and presumably on two of the other flights -- were apparently so paralyzed by their conditioning that they couldn't assert themselves even when the alternative was certain death.

Even as pathetically disarmed as they were, they could have battered the hijackers with their briefcases, with their shoes, their purses. They could have overwhelmed them with sheer numbers of bodies. They could have gouged at their eyes with fingers or car keys. Could have knocked them unconscious with luggage from the overhead racks. Could have tripped them, stomped on them, tied them up with cords from audio headsets.

But except on United Flight 93, they apparently did nothing. And so three planes flew, sure and true, into the heart of three American landmarks, slaughtering thousands.

THE ONLY TRUE SECURITY MEASURE: A BILL OF RIGHTS CULTURE

We must take back America as a country. We must make it free and independent again -- no longer the would-be ruler of its own people, and no longer playing at being the world's supercop. Only by doing that will earn the world's peace and respect.

We must take our own individual lives and independent spirits back from would-be rulers and criminals, as well.

If we consent, passively, to give up more freedoms -- even "temporarily," or "as an emergency measure" -- we'll be doing the opposite. We'll be less safe, less free.

To restore American freedom and personal courage, we must restore the Bill of Rights -- in our country and in our hearts and minds. If we understand the Bill of Rights, we'll understand what we're fighting for -- and why. If we let it slip away what's left won't be worth fighting for.

This means not merely having an intellectual or legal understanding of the Bill of Rights. This means not merely memorizing the Bill of Rights or teaching it to our children. This means understanding the concepts of individual liberty that underlie the Bill of Rights -- then living those concepts, breathing them, eating the, dreaming them, holding them as the most central values of our lives, in the same place we hold our beliefs in the diety, or our dedication to our families, or to truth or justice.

We must behave as free people, expect and encourage others to behave as free people -- and have zero tolerance for anyone who abuses freedom or uses his authority to violate the Bill of Rights.

If there ever was a time in history to get behind the Bill of Rights and promote it, it is now. If we yield to this mushy thinking that the road to freedom and safety lies in GIVING UP freedom and the Bill of Rights, then we might as well bow down in defeat right now.

If we don't defend our rights, we'll have no rights. If we don't defend ourselves, our family members, and our fellow citizens -- AND defend their freedoms -- then our lives will be no more valuable than those of cattle and sheep. And the America we end up with won't be the America we thought we were fighting for.

If you want to be a passive herd beast -- obey whatever the authority of the moment, be that a bureaucrat or a hijacker, tells you to do. Listen to their lies about "safety and security" and obey, obey, obey.

But If you truly want to combat terrorism or terror-war, learn the Bill of Rights, teach the Bill of Rights, and enforce the Bill of Rights with every action of your life.

FIGHT BACK WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

The Liberty Crew Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc.BR

"We must give up some of our freedoms to help combat terrorism."

The predictable words -- and actions -- are beginning to spew from political, military, and law enforcement officials and their supporters. For safety, for security, for the greater good, they somberly tell us, we must comply with their agendas. To be protected from terrorism we must submit to more restrictions -- on our ability to travel, our freedom from arbitrary searches, on the privacy of our communications, on our right to bear arms, on our ability to conduct business hidden from the prying eyes of government.

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) has called for a global prohibition on encryption products without backdoors for government surveillance.

Travel regulators have banned knives on planes. (Does this mean even the pilots can't protect themselves and passengers against hijackers?)

ISPs who were reluctant to cooperate with the FBI's invasive Carnivore program are now rushing to comply.

The Senate has, in the wake of Black Tuesday, voted to increase the FBI's authority to tap the phones of anyone suspected of terrorism. As we've seen by all these other random restrictions, we are ALL suspects in the eyes of the U.S. government.

Perhaps most ominously of all, the Washington Post quoted House Democrat Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO) as making the self-contradictory, but entirely predictable statement, "We're in a new world where we have to rebalance freedom and security. We can't take away people's civil liberties . . . but we're not going to have all the openness and freedom we have had." The Post [washingtonpost.com] then went on to describe how every war or crisis of the last 100 years has been use to increase government power -- often in the most draconian ways. More Data Here [afcomm.com] Freelance supporters of the Surveillance State are rushing to urge everyone to comply. One liberal talk show host responded to callers who complained that Big Brother policies at airports were a problem, "Big Brother is the only thing holding us together!"

He offered no evidence to show how Big Brother made us safe on Tuesday, September 11.

WE MUST THINK FREE, NOT PATRIOTICALLY JERK OUR KNEES

Soon we may be at war. And as always at such times, we'll be expected to "pull together," "do what our leaders tell us is necessary," and sacrifice more freedom in the name of "safety and security" or patriotism. And, as the reality of the Day of Horror seeps in, who doesn't feel an urge to strike back, to "get behind our government," to "show those murdering bastards they can't push Americans around," and to "do whatever it takes to defend the greatest country on earth"? -- even if that means sacrificing individual liberty to "the cause."

Whatever happens from here on out, we need to remember that Big Brother is NOT holding us together -- that he never can and never will. We must remember that the kind of restrictions on the liberties of ordinary Americans that were entirely ineffective in preventing the attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001 will not magically prevent future attacks merely because their severity is increased.

What did all of Big Brother's efforts do to prevent Tuesday's slaughter? The violations of freedom we've already been subjected to in the name of safety -- airport x-rays, ID checks, disarmament, body searches, and the whole gamut -- became a sick a joke when the day arrived that we needed them to protect the country against the world's worst criminals. In fact, Daniel Pipes of the Wall Street Journal was quick to point out how the government's reliance on mass eavesdropping and tracking actually diverted resources from more effective anti-terrorism methods, such as actually studying and infiltrating genuine terrorist groups.

Yet now the government proposes a giant national effort to do more of the same -- to impose more ineffective, wasteful, and oppressive mass surveillance and restrictions.

New restrictions on the freedoms of non-violent people will do nothing to make America or the world safer. They'll make us less safe, as well as less free.

There are at least two reasons for this.

The first is that more restrictions, and more power placed in the hands of government, will simply, in the long run, create more rage and therefore more desire to strike violently. (As we also saw, some restrictions, like those that forbid armed citizens on planes, also make it harder for Americans to protect themselves and their country.)

The second is something we observed, tragically, though cell phone calls from four doomed, hijacked planes: the fatal passivity and dependence that seems to be becoming the norm in American behavior.

THE PASSIVE, UNTHINKING AMERICAN

It appears now that a handful of heroic passengers on one flight, having learned via telephone that two other hijacked planes had already smashed into the World Trade Center, decided not to allow themselves to be used as weapons of war. These passengers on United Flight 93 attacked the hijackers who were in control of the plane. Doomed in any case, they ended up dying in the woods and fields of rural Pennsylvania, rather than passively allowing their captors to get away with an even more horrendous mass murder.

We also know that, on at least one other flight --American Airlines Flight 77, which smashed into the Pentagon -- passenger Barbara Olson learned from her husband, U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, of the World Trade Center catastrophe. During two separate calls, Mrs. Olson (a well- known author and conservative television commentator) asked her husband what the pilot -- standing next to her in the back of the plane -- should do.

Picture that. Passengers and crew have been herded -- and note that word well, herded -- to the back of the plane. Even the pilot, the leader, the chief decision-maker, does nothing. Can't think what do to. Can't act. Instead of attempting to save their own lives and the lives of others on the ground, what do they do? They expect a federal government official to make the decision for them. THE EVIDENCE SAYS THAT THESE PEOPLE DIDN'T EVEN FEEL EMPOWERED TO DEFEND THEIR OWN LIVES WITHOUT FIRST ASKING THE ADVICE OR PERMISSION OF WASHINGTON, D.C..

And why should we have expected otherwise? Americans have been told repeatedly never to resist crime, always to submit to any demand a thug makes of them. Always go along -- for safety's sake. Go along in order to avoid angering the criminal. We've been told always to submit, as well, to any demand made by anyone who appears to be "in charge." These people on Flight 77 -- and presumably on two of the other flights -- were apparently so paralyzed by their conditioning that they couldn't assert themselves even when the alternative was certain death.

Even as pathetically disarmed as they were, they could have battered the hijackers with their briefcases, with their shoes, their purses. They could have overwhelmed them with sheer numbers of bodies. They could have gouged at their eyes with fingers or car keys. Could have knocked them unconscious with luggage from the overhead racks. Could have tripped them, stomped on them, tied them up with cords from audio headsets.

But except on United Flight 93, they apparently did nothing. And so three planes flew, sure and true, into the heart of three American landmarks, slaughtering thousands.

THE ONLY TRUE SECURITY MEASURE: A BILL OF RIGHTS CULTURE

We must take back America as a country. We must make it free and independent again -- no longer the would-be ruler of its own people, and no longer playing at being the world's supercop. Only by doing that will earn the world's peace and respect.

We must take our own individual lives and independent spirits back from would-be rulers and criminals, as well.

If we consent, passively, to give up more freedoms -- even "temporarily," or "as an emergency measure" -- we'll be doing the opposite. We'll be less safe, less free.

To restore American freedom and personal courage, we must restore the Bill of Rights -- in our country and in our hearts and minds. If we understand the Bill of Rights, we'll understand what we're fighting for -- and why. If we let it slip away what's left won't be worth fighting for.

This means not merely having an intellectual or legal understanding of the Bill of Rights. This means not merely memorizing the Bill of Rights or teaching it to our children. This means understanding the concepts of individual liberty that underlie the Bill of Rights -- then living those concepts, breathing them, eating the, dreaming them, holding them as the most central values of our lives, in the same place we hold our beliefs in the diety, or our dedication to our families, or to truth or justice.

We must behave as free people, expect and encourage others to behave as free people -- and have zero tolerance for anyone who abuses freedom or uses his authority to violate the Bill of Rights.

If there ever was a time in history to get behind the Bill of Rights and promote it, it is now. If we yield to this mushy thinking that the road to freedom and safety lies in GIVING UP freedom and the Bill of Rights, then we might as well bow down in defeat right now.

If we don't defend our rights, we'll have no rights. If we don't defend ourselves, our family members, and our fellow citizens -- AND defend their freedoms -- then our lives will be no more valuable than those of cattle and sheep. And the America we end up with won't be the America we thought we were fighting for.

If you want to be a passive herd beast -- obey whatever the authority of the moment, be that a bureaucrat or a hijacker, tells you to do. Listen to their lies about "safety and security" and obey, obey, obey.

But If you truly want to combat terrorism or terror-war, learn the Bill of Rights, teach the Bill of Rights, and enforce the Bill of Rights with every action of your life.

FIGHT BACK WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

The Liberty Crew [jpfo.org] Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc.BR

"We must give up some of our freedoms to help combat terrorism."

The predictable words -- and actions -- are beginning to spew from political, military, and law enforcement officials and their supporters. For safety, for security, for the greater good, they somberly tell us, we must comply with their agendas. To be protected from terrorism we must submit to more restrictions -- on our ability to travel, our freedom from arbitrary searches, on the privacy of our communications, on our right to bear arms, on our ability to conduct business hidden from the prying eyes of government.

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) has called for a global prohibition on encryption products without backdoors for government surveillance.

Travel regulators have banned knives on planes. (Does this mean even the pilots can't protect themselves and passengers against hijackers?)

ISPs who were reluctant to cooperate with the FBI's invasive Carnivore program are now rushing to comply.

The Senate has, in the wake of Black Tuesday, voted to increase the FBI's authority to tap the phones of anyone suspected of terrorism. As we've seen by all these other random restrictions, we are ALL suspects in the eyes of the U.S. government.

Perhaps most ominously of all, the Washington Post quoted House Democrat Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO) as making the self-contradictory, but entirely predictable statement, "We're in a new world where we have to rebalance freedom and security. We can't take away people's civil liberties . . . but we're not going to have all the openness and freedom we have had." The Post then went on to describe how every war or crisis of the last 100 years has been use to increase government power -- often in the most draconian ways. More Data Here Freelance supporters of the Surveillance State are rushing to urge everyone to comply. One liberal talk show host responded to callers who complained that Big Brother policies at airports were a problem, "Big Brother is the only thing holding us together!"

He offered no evidence to show how Big Brother made us safe on Tuesday, September 11.

WE MUST THINK FREE, NOT PATRIOTICALLY JERK OUR KNEES

Soon we may be at war. And as always at such times, we'll be expected to "pull together," "do what our leaders tell us is necessary," and sacrifice more freedom in the name of "safety and security" or patriotism. And, as the reality of the Day of Horror seeps in, who doesn't feel an urge to strike back, to "get behind our government," to "show those murdering bastards they can't push Americans around," and to "do whatever it takes to defend the greatest country on earth"? -- even if that means sacrificing individual liberty to "the cause."

Whatever happens from here on out, we need to remember that Big Brother is NOT holding us together -- that he never can and never will. We must remember that the kind of restrictions on the liberties of ordinary Americans that were entirely ineffective in preventing the attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001 will not magically prevent future attacks merely because their severity is increased.

What did all of Big Brother's efforts do to prevent Tuesday's slaughter? The violations of freedom we've already been subjected to in the name of safety -- airport x-rays, ID checks, disarmament, body searches, and the whole gamut -- became a sick a joke when the day arrived that we needed them to protect the country against the world's worst criminals. In fact, Daniel Pipes of the Wall Street Journal was quick to point out how the government's reliance on mass eavesdropping and tracking actually diverted resources from more effective anti-terrorism methods, such as actually studying and infiltrating genuine terrorist groups.

Yet now the government proposes a giant national effort to do more of the same -- to impose more ineffective, wasteful, and oppressive mass surveillance and restrictions.

New restrictions on the freedoms of non-violent people will do nothing to make America or the world safer. They'll make us less safe, as well as less free.

There are at least two reasons for this.

The first is that more restrictions, and more power placed in the hands of government, will simply, in the long run, create more rage and therefore more desire to strike violently. (As we also saw, some restrictions, like those that forbid armed citizens on planes, also make it harder for Americans to protect themselves and their country.)

The second is something we observed, tragically, though cell phone calls from four doomed, hijacked planes: the fatal passivity and dependence that seems to be becoming the norm in American behavior.

THE PASSIVE, UNTHINKING AMERICAN

It appears now that a handful of heroic passengers on one flight, having learned via telephone that two other hijacked planes had already smashed into the World Trade Center, decided not to allow themselves to be used as weapons of war. These passengers on United Flight 93 attacked the hijackers who were in control of the plane. Doomed in any case, they ended up dying in the woods and fields of rural Pennsylvania, rather than passively allowing their captors to get away with an even more horrendous mass murder.

We also know that, on at least one other flight --American Airlines Flight 77, which smashed into the Pentagon -- passenger Barbara Olson learned from her husband, U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, of the World Trade Center catastrophe. During two separate calls, Mrs. Olson (a well- known author and conservative television commentator) asked her husband what the pilot -- standing next to her in the back of the plane -- should do.

Picture that. Passengers and crew have been herded -- and note that word well, herded -- to the back of the plane. Even the pilot, the leader, the chief decision-maker, does nothing. Can't think what do to. Can't act. Instead of attempting to save their own lives and the lives of others on the ground, what do they do? They expect a federal government official to make the decision for them. THE EVIDENCE SAYS THAT THESE PEOPLE DIDN'T EVEN FEEL EMPOWERED TO DEFEND THEIR OWN LIVES WITHOUT FIRST ASKING THE ADVICE OR PERMISSION OF WASHINGTON, D.C..

And why should we have expected otherwise? Americans have been told repeatedly never to resist crime, always to submit to any demand a thug makes of them. Always go along -- for safety's sake. Go along in order to avoid angering the criminal. We've been told always to submit, as well, to any demand made by anyone who appears to be "in charge." These people on Flight 77 -- and presumably on two of the other flights -- were apparently so paralyzed by their conditioning that they couldn't assert themselves even when the alternative was certain death.

Even as pathetically disarmed as they were, they could have battered the hijackers with their briefcases, with their shoes, their purses. They could have overwhelmed them with sheer numbers of bodies. They could have gouged at their eyes with fingers or car keys. Could have knocked them unconscious with luggage from the overhead racks. Could have tripped them, stomped on them, tied them up with cords from audio headsets.

But except on United Flight 93, they apparently did nothing. And so three planes flew, sure and true, into the heart of three American landmarks, slaughtering thousands.

THE ONLY TRUE SECURITY MEASURE: A BILL OF RIGHTS CULTURE

We must take back America as a country. We must make it free and independent again -- no longer the would-be ruler of its own people, and no longer playing at being the world's supercop. Only by doing that will earn the world's peace and respect.

We must take our own individual lives and independent spirits back from would-be rulers and criminals, as well.

If we consent, passively, to give up more freedoms -- even "temporarily," or "as an emergency measure" -- we'll be doing the opposite. We'll be less safe, less free.

To restore American freedom and personal courage, we must restore the Bill of Rights -- in our country and in our hearts and minds. If we understand the Bill of Rights, we'll understand what we're fighting for -- and why. If we let it slip away what's left won't be worth fighting for.

This means not merely having an intellectual or legal understanding of the Bill of Rights. This means not merely memorizing the Bill of Rights or teaching it to our children. This means understanding the concepts of individual liberty that underlie the Bill of Rights -- then living those concepts, breathing them, eating the, dreaming them, holding them as the most central values of our lives, in the same place we hold our beliefs in the diety, or our dedication to our families, or to truth or justice.

We must behave as free people, expect and encourage others to behave as free people -- and have zero tolerance for anyone who abuses freedom or uses his authority to violate the Bill of Rights.

If there ever was a time in history to get behind the Bill of Rights and promote it, it is now. If we yield to this mushy thinking that the road to freedom and safety lies in GIVING UP freedom and the Bill of Rights, then we might as well bow down in defeat right now.

If we don't defend our rights, we'll have no rights. If we don't defend ourselves, our family members, and our fellow citizens -- AND defend their freedoms -- then our lives will be no more valuable than those of cattle and sheep. And the America we end up with won't be the America we thought we were fighting for.

If you want to be a passive herd beast -- obey whatever the authority of the moment, be that a bureaucrat or a hijacker, tells you to do. Listen to their lies about "safety and security" and obey, obey, obey.

But If you truly want to combat terrorism or terror-war, learn the Bill of Rights, teach the Bill of Rights, and enforce the Bill of Rights with every action of your life.

FIGHT BACK WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

The Liberty Crew Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc.