From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #457 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Saturday, July 28 2001 Volume 02 : Number 457 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 10:54:47 -0700 From: Bill Vance Subject: VIN: Disloyal to the United States? (fwd) From: Rich Martin Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 23:48:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {NewsUCanUse} VIN: Disloyal to the United States? FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Disloyal to the United States? New Attorney General (and former U.S. Sen.) John Ashcroft has said he will honor President Bush's desire to extend the federal ban on further manufacture or import of certain semi-automatic rifles with pistol grips, bayonet lugs, and 20-round magazines (weapons which are designed to look like "assault weapons," even though they lack the true assault weapon's capacity for automatic fire -- real assault rifles having been heavily taxed and regulated as a "machine gun" ever since 1934.) Sen. Ashcroft testified at his Senate confirmation hearing, "I don't believe the Second Amendment to be one that forbids any regulation of guns." This is a radical defender of the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights? Paging Wimp Central. Sen. Ashcroft does not promise the long-overdue shutdown of the firearms division of the BATF. He does not even call for the average American to again be allowed to purchase a newly-imported machine gun through the mails, as any of our law-abiding grandparents could before 1934. Rather, the attorney general embraces what is now described in the legal journals as the standard position on the Second Amendment (endorsed by the liberal Lawrence Tribe of Harvard, among others), that while some "pragmatic" regulation may be allowable, the Second Amendment means what it plainly says: that individual, private citizens of these United States have a "right to keep and bear arms," which none may "infringe." Much is made of the "militia clause," which prefaces this ban on infringement by stating "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State... ." Indeed, the Supreme Court took this militia stipulation into account in its decision in the 1939 Miller case, in which the justices asked the prosecutors whether the sawed-off-shotgun in question was a weapon of military usefulness. With Miller (an indigent and itinerant moonshiner) not represented, the spokesman for the government falsely and without opposition asserted that sawed-off shotguns had been of no use at all in the trenches of the recent World War. With this false testimony unchallenged, the high court remanded the Miller case, advising that ownership of a sawed-off shotgun would not be protected under the Second Amendment if such a weapon was, in fact, of no military usefulness. Miller is often cited today as a case supporting the government's right to regulate or even ban firearms except in use by the National Guard. But no one contended Miller was involved in discharging his duties as a member of the Missouri National Guard as he stood protecting his illicit whiskey still with his sawed-off shotgun. Rather, under the logic of the 1939 Miller court, it is private possession of precisely those weapon of military utility (such as the true, fully-automatic assault rifle, and the shoulder-launched, heat-seeking missile) which is most directly protected by the Second Amendment. Why else would the court have asked whether the sawed-off shotgun was a weapon of military utility? Anyway, do those who advance the "militia argument" really want to help us make sure our local citizen militias are better armed and better drilled (the colonial meaning of "well regulated," as it's still the British meaning), and thus better prepared to resist any further federal usurpation of powers not duly delegated to the central government by the Constitution? Of course not. They know full well that a disarmed populace is far less likely to resist ever-higher taxes to fund the gun-grabbers' favorite social engineering schemes, not to mention busy federal beavers shutting off the irrigation water to save the "endangered sucker fish" of the Klamath River Valley. What they want has nothing to do with the Founders' intent that America should depend on a strong and independent-minded citizen militia instead of a standing army under the central control of Washington City. No, this is all just a lawyer's parlor trick to get to a result best summarized as: "I don't want Suprynowicz and his buddies to own any more guns, except maybe one inoffensive, single-shot hunting rifle apiece," and it doesn't matter how much the plain-as-day writings of James Madison and Tenche Cox and Patrick Henry and Noah Webster and Richard Henry Lee have to be twisted to get them to this result. Meantime, how has the left -- which continually insists it has no desire to actually ban firearms in private hands -- responded to Mr. Ashcroft's pitifully moderate stance? There now arises from among their midst a cacophony of outraged shrieks and bellows the like of which has not been heard since an equally timid Republican insurgency asserted in 1994 that perhaps, just maybe, an owner whose property had been reduced to worthlessness by environmental regulations might be entitled to some compensation under the Fifth Amendment's "takings" clause. The prediction of the Reactionary Left at the time -- that this would lead to the paving-over of paradise -- does not seem to have come to fruition. (In fact, the federal government now rules millions more acres off limits to the private citizen than ever before.) This time from the socialist fringe, the leaders of the victim disarmament movement shriek that if Mr. Ashcroft succeeds in getting the FBI to destroy records of their gun-buyer "instant background checks" as soon as they're completed -- precisely as the gun grabbers assured us they would, back when they were promoting their precious "Brady Bill" -- why, it will "eviscerate the ability of law enforcement officials to prevent fraud and illegal gun sales by unscrupulous dealers to straw purchasers." Why? Because "instant checks" are worthless? How many illegal sales are permitted by the "instant check" but then tracked down, 89 days later? And how do we know these records are really being destroyed after 90 days, anyway? Has any FBI agent ever been led away in handcuffs and locked up in Leavenworth for retaining such a record for, say, 150 days? Is such an outcome even conceivable? By writing a letter to the National Rifle Association, rejecting the argument that the Second protects only a " 'collective' right of the states to maintain militias," Mr. Ashcroft has shown "disloyalty to his client, the United States, and an impermissible conflict of interest," charge U.S. Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and Charles E. Schumer, in an article published in the July 21 Boston Globe. Disloyalty to the United States? By reading out the plain English of the Bill of Rights? Are Sens. Kennedy and Schumer now taking a page from the late Sen. Joe McCarthy? As to this "collective right" nonsense, let us merely imagine any elected official in these United States asserting with a straight face that the Freedom of the Press is a "collective right" which can be properly exercised only by each state governor naming and funding one "official newspaper" for his state -- operated under his personal command and control - -- whereupon it will not infringe the so-called "Freedom of the Press" in the slightest way if private individuals attempting to own and operate their own, competing printing presses are arrested and thrown in jail. After all, it's not written down that it's an "individual" right? So it must be a "collective" right ... right? "In a series of stealth measures and after private communication with the gun lobby, Attorney General John Ashcroft is quietly taking steps to erode the very gun laws he has sworn under oath to defend," thunder the rape enablers Kennedy and Schumer, conveniently provided by the U.S. government with all the armed bodyguards they desire, even as they would incrementally disarm the rest of us. In his May 17 letter to the NRA, the ruffled senators squawk, "Ashcroft also articulated a new standard for evaluating gun laws, proposing to require that any restriction on gun ownership be supported by a compelling state interest -- a test that very few laws can survive." What an interesting acknowledgment -- that few of the infringements on the Bill of Rights promoted by Sens. Schumer and Kennedy could withstand this simple test, demanding that some "compelling state interest" be shown for further erosion of our rights. In fact, every existing "gun control" laws is unwise, unconstitutional and counterproductive. Counties which allow law-abiding private citizens to go armed have seen their rates of violent crime drop markedly, as documented by Dr. John Lott of Yale in his fine, peer-reviewed book "More Guns, Less Crime." Sens. Kennedy and Schumer are on the losing end of this debate over individual liberties. They have nothing left in their arsenal but foot-stomping, hog-bellowing, feigned outrage and manufactured fear. And their overreaction to Mr. Ashcroft's extremely modest pronouncements shows that they know it. Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Subscribe to his monthly newsletter by sending $72 to Privacy Alert, 561 Keystone Ave., Suite 684, Reno, NV 89503 -- or dialing 775-348-8591. His book, "Send in the Waco Killers: Essays on the Freedom Movement, 1993-1998," is available at 1-800-244-2224, or via web site www.thespiritof76.com/wacokillers.html. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule the majority are wrong. The minority are right." -- Eugene V. Debs (1855-1926) "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken * * * To subscribe, send a message to vinsends-request@ezlink.com, from your NEW address, including the word "subscribe" (with no quotation marks) in the "Subject" line. All I ask of electronic subscribers is that they not RE-forward my columns until on or after the embargo date which appears at the top of each, and that (should they then choose to do so) they copy the columns in their entirety, preserving the original attribution. The Vinsends list is maintained by Alan Wendt in Colorado, who may be reached directly at alan@ezlink.com. The web sites for the Suprynowicz column are at http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/vinyard.htm, and http://www.nguworld.com/vindex. The Vinyard is maintained by Michael Voth in Flagstaff, who may be reached directly at mvoth@infomagic.com. - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 13:37:18 -0700 From: Bill Vance Subject: TIPS ON STAYING SAFE AND ALIVE...FOR WOMEN (fwd) This could be a good, "freeby", for us to pass around in the, "PR wars". It has however, little advice about firearms. I suggest this lack be corrected before use, and submit the following paragraph as a possible starting point. Your turn. A gun is not a magic wand. You can't wave one around and start playing, "Simon Sez". Attrempting to do so just tells them that even with a gun, you're still afraid of them, and likely afraid to pull the trigger, as well. If you have to pull it, use it. If you have to use it, keep it pointed at their middle, and keep pulling the trigger until they, "faw down go boom". From: william king Subject: {SD-2} Fw: TIPS ON STAYING SAFE AND ALIVE...FOR WOMEN Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 12:08:39 -0500 From: spiker To: Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 10:51 AM Subject: TIPS ON STAYING SAFE AND ALIVE...FOR WOMEN > From: Julie > > Karate classes teach that the elbow is the strongest point on your > body. If you are close enough to use it, do! > > If you are ever thrown into the trunk of a car, kick out the back tail > lights and stick your arm out the hole and start waving like crazy. > The driver won't see you but everybody else will. This has saved lives. > > Last night I attended a personal safety workshop, and it jolted me. It was > given by an amazing man, Pat Malone, who has been a body guard for famous > figures like Farrah Fawcett and Sylvester Stallone. He works for the FBI, > and teaches police officers and Navy SEALS hand-to-hand combat.This man has > seen it all, and knows a lot. He focused his teachings to us on HOW TO > AVOID BEING THE VICTIM OF A VIOLENT CRIME. He gave us some statistics > about how much the occurrences of random violence have escalated over the > recent years, and it's terrible. > > Something like 99% of us will be exposed to, or become a victim of a > violent crime. Here are some of the most important points that I got out > of his presentation: > > (1.) The three reasons women are easy targets for random acts of violence are: > > (a.) Lack of Awareness: You MUST know where you are & what's going on > around you. > > (b.) Body Language: Keep your head up, swing your arms, stand straight up. > > (c.) Wrong Place, Wrong Time: DON'T walk alone in an alley, or drive in a > bad neighborhood at night. > > (2.) Women have a tendency to get into their cars after shopping, eating, > working, etc., and just sit (doing their checkbook, or making a list, etc.). > DON'T DO THIS! The predator will be watching you, and this is the perfect > opportunity for him to get in the passenger side, put a gun to your head, > and tell you where to go. AS SOON AS YOU GET INTO YOUR CAR, LOCK THE DOORS > AND LEAVE. > > (a.) A few notes about getting into your car in a parking lot, or parking > garage: Be aware: look around you, look into your car, at the passenger > side floor, and in the back seat. > > (b.) If you are parked next to a big van, enter your car from the passenger > door. Most serial killers attack their victims by pulling them into their > vans while the women are attempting to get into their cars. > > (c.) Look at the car parked on the driver's side of your vehicle, and the > passenger side. If a male is sitting alone in the seat nearest your car, > you may want to walk back into the mall, or work, and get a guard/policeman > to walk you back out. IT IS ALWAYS BETTER TO BE SAFE THAN SORRY. (Better > paranoid than dead.) > > (3.) ALWAYS take the elevator instead of the stairs. (Stairwells are > horrible places to be alone and the perfect crime spot). > > (a.) Do not get on an elevator if there is a weirdo already on there. > (Of course bad men don't always look bad). > > (b.) Do not stand back in the corners of the elevator; be near the front, > by the doors, ready to get off or on. > > (c.) If you get on the elevator on the 25th floor, and the Boogie Man gets > on the 22nd, get off when he gets on and wait for another elevator. > > (4) If the predator has a gun and you are not under his control, ALWAYS RUN! > > (a.) Police make only 4 of 10 shots when they are in range of 3-9 > feet. This is due to stress. > > (b.) The predator will only hit you (a running target) 4 in 100 times. > And even then, it most likely WILL NOT be a vital organ. RUN! > > (5.) As women, we are always trying to be sympathetic: STOP IT! It may get > you raped, or killed. > > (a.) Ted Bundy, the serial killer, was a good looking, well-educated man, > who ALWAYS played on the sympathies of unsuspecting women. He walked with > a cane, or a limp, and often asked "for help" into his vehicle or with his > vehicle, which is when he abducted his next victim. > > (b.) Pat Malone told us the story of his daughter, who came out of the mall > and was walking to her car when she noticed 2 older ladies in front of > her. Then she saw a police car come towards her with cops who said > hello. She also noticed that all 8 handicap spots in the area were > empty. As she neared her car she saw a man a few rows over calling to her > for help. He wanted her to close his passenger side door. He was sitting > in the driver's side, and said he was handicapped. He continued calling, > until she turned and headed back to the mall, and then he began cursing at > her. In the meantime, she wondered why he didn't ask the 2 older ladies, or > the policeman for help, and why he was not parked in any of the empty handicap > spots. As she got back to the mall, two male friends of hers were exiting, > and as she told them the story, and turned to point at the car, the man was > in the back seat, and quickly moved back to the front and sped away. > > DON'T GET CAUGHT IN THIS TRAP. > > (6.). Tips to saving your life, if you have gotten into a violent situation: > > (a.) REACT IMMEDIATELY. If he abducts you in a parking lot, and is taking > you to an abandoned area, DON'T LET HIM GET YOU TO THAT AREA. If you are > driving, react immediately in the situation, and crash your car while still > going 5 mph. If he's driving, find the right time, and stick your fingers > in his eyes. He must watch the road, so choose an unsuspecting time, and > gouge him. It is your ONLY defense. While he is in shock, GET OUT. > (This sounds gross, but the alternative is your fault if you do not act.) > > (b.) RESIST. Don't go along with him: run, if you are able: DON'T EVER > GIVE UP! You DO NOT want to get to a crime scene. > > (7.) Always keep your distance when walking past strangers on the street or > in dark areas. > > (8.) BREAK DOWNS: Make every effort to avoid this by ALWAYS keeping your > car in good working order. > > (a.) If your car breaks down and you have a cell phone: LOCK YOUR DOORS. > Then call for help. > > (b.) If it's noon on a business day in a populated area, you may want to > put your hazards on and walk to safety. > > (c.) If it's 2am near a populated area, put on your warm clothes, and walk > to a lighted area. You are a perfect target if you are sitting in your car > when it's broken down. Predators search the highways for easy targets like > you. > > (d.) If you're on a desolate road: walk away from the car (in your warm > clothes) and go to some bushes, or some area AWAY from your vehicle. It > will be cold, and uncomfortable, but you DO NOT want to stay in your car, > and there are no psycho bogeymen waiting in the bushes who just knew you > were going to break down there and then. > > (9.) Physical defenses that we can use against the violent predator: > > (a.) The EYES are the most vulnerable part of the body. Poke him there. > HARD. It may be your only window of opportunity. > > (b.) The neck is also a vulnerable spot, but you MUST know where to grip, > AND HAVE THE STRENGTH to cut off his breath. > > (c.) The last place is the KNEES. Everyone's knees are very vulnerable, > and a swift kick here will take anyone down. > > -- A cautionary note about these things. If you do not do these things > right the first time, you are in trouble, because it will only anger the > individual, and that anger will be TAKEN OUT ON YOU. I'm not saying don't > attempt them (it may be your only hope), but be forceful when you do. > > (10.) If you are walking alone in the dark (which you shouldn't be) and you > find him following/chasing you: > > (a.) Scream "FIRE!", and not, "Help!". People don't want to get involved > when people yell "help," but "fire" draws attention because people are nosy. > > (b.) RUN! > > (c.) Find an obstacle, such as a parked car, and run around it, like Ring > Around the Rosie. This may sound silly, but over the years, 5 women have > told Pat Malone that this SAVED THEIR LIVES. > > (d.) Your last hope is getting under the car. Once you are under there, > there are tons of things to hold on to, and he will not be able to get you > out unless he comes under after you (which makes it easier for you to > escape or fend him off). Usually they give up by this point. The catch > here is that YOU MUST PRACTICE GETTING UNDER THE CAR. You must have a plan > (he will have one); know if you will be going on your back, front, from the > side or back of the car. It must be practiced. > > (11.) Never let yourself or anyone that you know be a "closer" in any type > of business (bar, store, restaurant, gas station). Pat knew Danielle, who > was a girl that just died from being shot pointblank by some kids while she > was closing at the local gas station. He talked with her the night before > she died, and asked whether it ever scared her to close alone. > She said yes, but said, "I'll be all right, Pat. I'll be all right." She > wasn't. > > Our world is not as safe as we pretend that it is, and living in our > fantasy worlds WILL get us in trouble, sooner or later. Pat Malone said, > again and again, that the women who die EVERY MINUTE from violent crime > expected to go to bed tonight, and get up tomorrow = No one expects it, we > must but be prepared and be aware so that we HAVE A PLAN. BE PREPARED TO > ACT! AND ACT HARD! HAVE A PLAN! > > I would encourage you to pass this on to all women, not just your friends > and family, but everybody. We all need to hear it. - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 22:30:40 -0700 From: Bill Vance Subject: Fiedor Report on the News (fwd) From: Doug Fiedor Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 17:30:41 -0400 Subject: {NewsUCanUse} Fiedor Report on the News Fiedor Report on the News A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia July 29, 2001 #238 by: Doug Fiedor dfiedor@home.com - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Previous Editions at: http://209.15.142.23/reports/headsup/list-hu.htm - --------------------------------------------------------------------- CARTER VS. BUSH Eight years of total sleaze with the Clinton administration and nary a peep from him. Now we get a President who displays some honor and integrity and out pops Jimmy Carter. Remember Jimmy? He volunteers to pound nails but back in the days of skyrocketing inflation and long lines at gas stations, Jimmy Carter was president (small "p"). Last week, Richard Hyatt and Serajul I. Bhuiyan of Knight Ridder reported that Carter criticized Bush's performance.(1) They write that "Jimmy Carter said he is disappointed in President Bush's performance in the Oval Office and said the first-term Republican has ignored moderates in both parties -- including Secretary of State Colin Powell." That's funny, actually. Jimmy Carter is a socialist. He tried to micromanage our economy and made such a mess of it that it took the Reagan Administration two years and the largest tax cut in history to get things running half way decent again. Carter gave away so much to foreigners that the balance of trade favored nearly everyone in the world but us, which further drained our economy. Then, he actually had gall enough to stand up and ask us to elect him to a second term. So now Jimmy wants Dubya to genuflect at the alter of domestic socialism like he did. "I thought he would be a moderate leader," Carter said, "but he has been very strictly conforming to some of the more conservative members of his administration -- his vice president [Dick Cheney] and his secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld] in particular. More moderate people like Colin Powell have been frozen out of the basic decision-making in dealing with international affairs." Carter actually thinks of himself as a "moderate" rather then a socialist meddler. But, unfortunately, he still doesn't seem to know his posterior orifice from the proverbial hole in the ground. "Moderates" were once "centrists," the middle of the road bunch. And the middle of the road is where they keep the yellow lines. There are not many of that breed left in Washington. Those who call themselves "moderate" today (in both parties) are nothing more than garden variety socialists. "I hoped that coming out of an uncertain election he would reach out to people of diverse views, not just Democrats and Republicans but others who had different points of view," Carter said. Different points of view like who? Socialist leader Tony Blair, maybe? Or perhaps he expects President Bush to kowtow to the far-left in Congress, like Daschel and Gephardt. Look at the difference in results. With Carter's energy crisis we had a mess for a couple years. The Clinton administration also totally screwed up the energy industry and President Bush inherited it. Unlike Carter's disastrous brand of socialism, Dubya simply said he was going to fix it and the industry suddenly responded. Because President Bush is a man of his word, the energy industry knew he would act. Suddenly, boardrooms across the country (and around the world) snapped to attention. Immediately, the excuses stopped and more oil and electrical power mysteriously materialized. All of a sudden, fuel prices began to drop and even California may have power to sell. That's leadership. There was no equivocation with the Bush team. The President set the tone: 'This is unacceptable and we need to act right away.' The Captain's of industry replied by immediately correcting the (contrived) "problem" before the Bush Administration had time to tinker with any laws. The result is that we will not have an energy crisis again while Bush is President. Just the opposite, in fact. If they begin drilling in even half of the new places mentioned, we will have plenty of fuel for the next couple decades. By then, the internal combustion engine will be phased out. When Jimmy Carter was playing like a president, on the other hand, he managed to aggravate all the oil producing countries so much we were lucky they were willing to send us any oil. Carter's administration was a fine example of one thing, though: The Peter Principle Personified. We thought we hired an engineer but what we got was a constant tinkerer with all thumbs. So, when Carter called the missile defense system proposed by Dubya "technologically ridiculous," saying "I think it will re-escalate the nuclear arms race," we know President Bush is exactly correct. Ditto when Carter calls the administration's efforts in the Middle East "fruitless." In short, Jimmy, go back to pounding nails and stay out of politics. - ----------------------------- 1. http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b5dcc773ea5.htm LIBERTY vs. COMPUTERIZED DRIVING The computer age is here and that's good. That is, it is good as long as people use the computers properly. When used improperly, computer technology can be a blatant violation of our liberty and privacy rights. Placing computer controlled video cameras at stop lights to catch those committing an infraction of a civil violation (running a red light) is a clear violation of liberty. That is little more than the creation of a new revenue stream by a municipality. In most states, a peace officer must actually see a civil infraction in order to write a ticket. But, courts are already wrongly accepting fines from "violators" caught only by cameras anyway, just to collect money. Now comes the concept of the "artificial passenger."(1) This one is kind of cute, actually. The problem is, it clearly opens the door for a very serious violation of our privacy by aggressive bureaucrats. The "artificial passenger" is the brainstorm of IBM scientists who evidently had a lot of free time on their hands. It comes as part of the "smart dashboard" concept automakers are considering to make automobile driving more convenient. For normal driving, the system will just lurk in the dashboard, watching. The "artificial passenger" will continually analyze the reaction of drivers -- speech, movement, etc. -- for signs of sleepiness. One way the "artificial passenger" will test the driver is by initiating conversations and monitoring the responses. The conversational cues would be created by first constructing a profile of a driver's likes and dislikes stored in an artificial intelligence database. The system would use a camera to watch the mouth of a driver and fine tune its speech recognition system to look for slurred speech. If there are signs of sleepiness, the artificial passenger would do a series of things, like asking startling questions, changing the radio station and even squirting water in the face to insure the driver is alert. No word yet if the artificial passenger system would phone home, too. But we've got five bucks to bet that the system would be maintaining a database for "accident investigation use." Which means, it would not be very long before bureaucrats and judges want an addition to stop drunk drivers, unlicensed drivers and a host of other such foolishness. That slippery slope could quickly lead down to a situation where one's automobile would turn them into police for any number of infractions. Perhaps the computer could even be used to contact police for speeding and reckless driving violations. Or, they could set driving time limits on automobile drivers as they do with long distance truckers and the computer could enforce the regulations automatically. Actually, this could be Big Brother at its best. The potential abuses of this artificial passenger computer system are only subject to the limits of the imagination. And police, prosecutors, judges and minor bureaucrats seem to have a very active imagination when the topic is the monitoring of the American people. For that reason, we look for a cottage industry of software and hardware additions to develop rather quickly. But that's not to say that this new technology could not be used for great benefit. Being from Detroit, I have had many conversations with electronic research engineers from the "big three" auto manufacturers. One system that has been nearly ready to go for many years would have the automobile automatically follow a wire in the highway. Information for speed, conditions and curves would be provided to the automobile and most interstate highway "driving" would be semiautomatic. Along with that system, sensors on the front and rear of the automobile would control the distance between cars and automatically apply the breaks if something gets in front of the car. Unfortunately, though, that would not help much if danger comes from the sides. The downside to that technology was the cost. The system was invented in the 1970s when computer systems were very expensive. But, that's not true anymore and that update would only cost a few hundred dollars today. If that system were integrated with a slightly updated version of the artificial passenger system, interstate highway driving could be more of a joy than a task. All the little computer systems would tend to keep traffic flowing at maximum speeds. Or . . . everyone would get the "Blue Screen of Death" at one time and all traffic would be halted until everyone stops long enough to reboot. That seems to be an interesting possibility, of course. - ----------------------------- 1. http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991039 WORLD COURT TESTS OUR COURTS Generally speaking, I'm a peaceful sort of guy. Grumpy once in a while, maybe. But peaceful, anyway. As a kid, I was taught boxing, Judo and the proper use of firearms, but no one except a violent attacker ever had to worry about me using any of that in public. It wasn't always that way, though. The Army got me for a few years and taught me very effective ways to kill people and destroy things. Then, they sent us forth and said to go do it. Still, it didn't take more than a couple days to get re-civilized again. By the time I was done celebrating getting back home in one piece, it was time to think about school, job and a place to live. Life immediately got active and there was no time to dwell on that past Army experience anymore. Nonetheless, I did learn something very important from military service. For one thing, I took the Oath of Office, promising God and country that "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" two different times. That was serious stuff to me and I meant it. As I look up those words again, I see there is no time limit on them. Presumably, I am still bound by that Oath. So, let's say, I know that some foreign government or concern has plans to come over here and kidnap an American citizen. It appears that my Oath might require me to act to put a halt to that. Kidnapping, after all, is a major felony. Which means, I may freely use whatever force is necessary to stop that act. That also means that every other person in the country who has ever taken that Oath would also be bound to take some such action to stop that crime. Well, here's the rub. On June 28, Betsy Pisik of the Washington Times(1) reported that the International Court of Justice(2) "in its most explicit language" said that its "orders are binding on U.S. and other national courts." According to the ICJ, their orders supersede our courts. The one world government crowd says that the ICJ hears disputes between nations and its decisions are considered binding. The decisions can only be appealed through the U.N. Security Council. Our courts do not count. The statutes of the International Court of Justice may be found, as one might imagine, on the United Nation's web site. In appears they are in cahoots and the International Court of Justice is the start of the court system for the new world government.(3) The ICJ is also known as the World Court. They order that our country may not charge citizens of other countries who violate our laws without notifying (asking permission of?) officials from the perpetrator's country of origin. Arizona tried and convicted a German national for murder. He got the death penalty. Germany got all bent out of shape about that and protested in the World Court based in the Hague. The World Court took it upon itself to issue an injunction ordering Arizona not to execute him until it could make a final ruling on the matter. Arizona executed the murder as scheduled, the following day. Actually that happened before, too. In one case, Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright appealed to the Supreme Court to halt an execution of someone convicted of rape and murder in Virginia. Virginia also executed the murder as scheduled. Generally, this was just an excuse for the new World Court to stretch its wings, act a little aggressive and test the waters. The European Union forbids the death penalty, so that seemed like a good place to start. The problem is, now they say that Germany might sue Arizona and the United States in this bogus World Court. So, the dismantling of our Constitutional system of government has begun. Outside forces are attempting to overrule our Constitution. This is something we must not take lightly! The problem will require an active political fight to correct. No system in the world should ever be allowed to overrule our court system. The communists, socialists and fascists on the U.N. Security Council must never be allowed to take any action that can affect the Liberty of the American people. To start, we must get the U.N. out of the United States and the United States out of the U.N. Else, our way of life will be forever lost. - ----------------------------- 1. http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b3b166a2599.htm 2. http://www.icj-cij.org 3. http://www.un.org/Overview/Statute/contents.html ~ End ~ - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 22:31:34 -0700 From: Bill Vance Subject: Citizens' Self Defense Bill # HR 31 (fwd) From: Swftl@aol.com Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 19:47:04 EDT Subject: {slick-d} Citizens' Self Defense Bill # HR 31 >Citizens' Self-Defense >Bill # H.R.31 > >Original Sponsor: >Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD 6th) > >Sponsor/Cosponsor Total: 66 >(last sponsor added 07/11/2001) > 11 Democrats > 1 Independents > 54 Republicans > >About This Legislation: >Two and a half million times a year, Americans use firearms to defend >themselves, their homes, and their families against criminal threats. >Sadly, the anti-gun zealotry of some liberal jurisdictions is so >extreme that prosecutors are more intent on punishing the armed >victim than the predatory criminal. > >H.R. 31 -- Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2001, introduced by Maryland >Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, would reaffirm the right to use a >firearm to protect yourself, your family, and your home. As such, it >would preempt any state or local statute or decision seeking to limit >that Second Amendment right. > >Furthermore, H.R. 31 would allow aggrieved gun owners to bring an >action against local officials for damages, injunctive relief and >such other relief as the court deems appropriate. > >Jurisdictions (such as Texas) which have expanded the rights of >citizens to use firearms to defend themselves have uniformly >witnessed dramatic drops in homicide and crime rates. > >By emboldening gun owners to maintain and carry firearms for self- >defense, H.R. 31 would be a major step toward reducing crime and >reaffirming the constitutional principles articulated by our >country's founders. > > >Detailed, up-to-date bill status information on H.R.31. >http://capwiz.com/liberty /issues/bills/?bill=28020 > >Sponsor list >http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/bi lls/?bill=28020&cs_party=all&cs_status=C&cs_state=ALL > >Contact your elected officials > >http://capwiz.com/liberty/dbq/offic ials/ > - -- Hugh Emerson - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #457 *************************