[This page is a mirror of this original]
BRAVO! Excellent essay.
Boy, the truth hurts....
The conclusion [Vin reaches] is wrong, and there's a simple reason it's wrong: It can't be right. We can't have it. Vin says, "It's over, we lost." Well, what do you do the day after you give up? That's what we have to do.
Whatever else it was, the Elian raid was a test to see whether the people are ready to tolerate a storm trooper invasion here and there without screaming "Waco!" again. That's why it was done that way. Notice that after it worked, the administration has become markedly more aggressive and belligerent.
The real way to go is to take back the institutions, and the sensibilities. Skilled advocates can do this. But they have to remember we're dealing with indoctrinated Republicans, even, such as the candidate Vin describes. And those are the most useful ones! We're also dealing with the sissified sensibility that prevails, in which "You're making me feel uncomfortable!" is the ultimate condemnation.
MacWilliams.[sic] Whatever his traits, he went down writing, talking, spouting sweet reason, speaking truth to power with humor and good nature. That's what I call an exemplar. That's the way to do it.
Your essay on the "right to bear arms" and the erosion of freedom in Amerika was excellent reading. I do want to let you know that there are those of us who will not lay down and play dead while the Constitution is trampled on by the Feds. There are many pockets of freedom fighters in this once great Republic and we will keep the fire kindled until defeat is inevitable, which I pray to God will never come. Thank you for your encouraging words.
Calvin H. Wortman
What a marvelous article. Depressing as hell, but it sure needed saying. One wonders, is there any place we can go from here??
Editors' note: For those who'd like a different take on the situation, see DLT's speech from this year's conclave
Thoughts on Handgun Calibers
While I generally found this to be good advice for almost anyone, I do take slight issue with your statement (probably paraphrased) that readers should ". . .forget guns in .22 or 9mm. . ."
People are _so_ variable in their physical capacities and "comfort" ranges, that I just don't think you can "write-off" any caliber of weapon for defensive use. As the old saying goes, ". . .I'd rather be missed by a .45 than hit by a .22!. . ."
Otherwise, great article, keep it coming. . .
Just read "Fundamentals of Self Defense" in the 1st issue of Doing Freedom!
You give a lot of good advice. Attitude is very important in the most important step in self-defense - avoiding bad situations. This is one of Jeff Cooper's main points in regard to preparedness.
Some of my favorite preparedness titles include:
Principles of Personal Defense; Paladin Press, Boulder, CO, 1989, ISBN 0-87364-497-2*
To Ride Shoot Straight And Speak The Truth; Gunsite Press, Paulden, AZ, 1988 & 1990, ISBN 0-9621342-0-1 and by Paladin Press as ISBN 0-87364-973-7
Cooper on Handguns; Petersen Publishing Co., Los Angeles, CA, 1974, ISBN 0-8227-0067-0 (Out of print) [Also listed as being published by Longman Trade/Caroline House, 1974 as ISBN 0-9621-3421-X. This book was also published in an abridged version in 1979 as "Jeff Cooper on Handguns," under ISBN 0-8227-2121-X]
A couple of points:
You say, "Don't bother with firearms that shoot .22 caliber or 9 mm; they don't have enough stopping power". I agree. [Although the magazine capacity of 9's these days makes up for a lot.] I would also exclude as choices the .380, .38 & .25 calibers. (I have had a .25 actually lodge so it was visible in the outer bark of an old stump.) [And just the kind touted by venal gun-dealers to unsuspecting ladies.]
I would also note not to choose a carry-gun with sights adjustable with other than a file and a brass hammer. They catch on things at the most inconvenient times and they are prone to get way out of whack.
All in all, a very good article. Keep up the fine work.
Health Care and Privacy
The subject of "privacy" is pretty well covered, but I do have a few bones to pick with other aspects of this article:
Yes, insurance can cost more than actual care received, but it is one way to be fiscally responsible and AVOID becoming the indigent person for others to support. It is therefore a much better option than this author holds out.
The last is the worst. The idea of using the ER as the primary care provider is downright stupid! Even people with good insurance or CASH must wait endless hours to be seen or helped AT ALL unless they are bleeding heavily or in the middle of a cardiopulmonary arrest, in which case they belong there. All others to the back of the room and please try not to barf on too many of the snotty nosed kids underfoot!
The ER department of any hospital is a ZOO, and I don't care what city it is in. I was triage nurse in a rather large ER and wouldn't go there for care unless I was dying. ... Please! Only real emergencies belong in the ER! All others go to urgent care (good idea) or make an appointment with a regular doctor.
I'd like to offer a much simpler idea. How about the good old fashioned word "no" when asked unnecessary questions or when asked to provide "identification". Most people gush out every detail at the slightest request. Exercise your right to refuse to provide any information unless you are convinced of the necessity. You may be denied treatment in some settings, but you will be in charge of your personal information and can try elsewhere if it is important enough to you.
Merrie responds: Of course the writer is correct that the ER is a poor choice for treatment, for the reasons she mentions. I thought I'd made it clear that that's not a good alternative, but in some cases it might be the only (or best) alternative. Thank you for helping to clarify that important point.
Attacking Those Dogs
Good article on eliminating attack dogs. As to police dogs tho, if you have time to spend at a few police dog trainer sites you'll find a police dog has more rights than a human in U.S. courts. Not only do they have the Government-given right to chew up unarmed suspects (sometimes to death, in the case of a Florida woman who was sleeping in an abandoned house and had her breasts chewed off) but anyone who shoots or kills a police dog will find themselves in deep doggy doo doo in many U.S. Courts.
There have even been attempts to get laws enacted that call for the Death penalty in the killing of a police dog. After all, it's not just a "dog" that is "murdered" it's a POLICE dog. A direct affront to the LAW, albeit an "instrument" or "tool" of Law Enforcement.
Just as our laws value Police Officers lives over that of ordinary citizens, it would follow that police dogs lives would be more valuable as well.
Thanks for the praise!
Let me repeat that.
You sure got my attention right away. I wandered in here by following a link in Vin Suprynowicz's current "bonus" email (in which, I noted a rather pronounced venting of his pent up frustration with the way things are headed today). I don't know what I was expecting, but it sure wasn't *this*. I've been on the Net long enough that I can't remember the last time I was genuinely surprised by a website.
I expect I'll be in touch soon - doingfreedom.com looks like a website that would give Dianne Feinstein an aneurysm (maybe I should send the url to her, just to see...); I'm sure happy I found it.
Our policy on letters: we reserve the right to print in whole or part any letter that we receive, along with the name of its author. If an author prefers that the letter be signed with a pen name, s/he should so indicate at the time the letter is sent.
Table of Contents