Selected Columns, Vin Suprynowic

Editor's Note: Mr. Suprynowic is one of the few true Libertarians who has been consistently on the side of the militia movement. He has never shown our cause anything other than a reasoned understanding of what we must do and why we must follow our course of action.

Below are some of Mr. Suprynowic's columns reproduced in part which show that there are some original thinkers who understand our movement in large part better than do some militiamen.

From the January 26, 1997 issue:

Pro-government extremists will argue that, in each case, if these citizens had docilely allowed armed strangers to have their way, they might still be alive. But this does not constitute a rebuttal to my contention that we are now living in a police state. Rather, it merely constitutes advice on how we might behave if we hope to survive a little longer in a police state. Short-sighted advice. The Jews of Eastern Europe figured their best course was to passively obey the authorities in 1942. We all know where that got them. Our judges are now issuing search warrants which allow police to invade private property without notice, and murder any law-abiding citizen they find there, on as flimsy a pretext as "searching for fake ID." The mistake made by David Aguilar and Ralph Garrison was not in taking up arms to defend their homes, families, and neighborhoods. That is the right of every American. They made their mistakes when they allowed themselves to be outgunned, when they failed to wear Kevlar, and when they decided to confront their violent assailants directly, rather than waiting with longer-range weapons in positions of concealment. The people will re-learn these lessons eventually ... if only through genetic selection.

From the January 6, 1997 column:

. . . Do cops on duty want to be treated as individuals? Do they expect us to take the time to form an individual judgment about whether we should obey them each time they give an order, depending on whether they seem like "good cops" or "bad cops"? I can no longer bring myself to say that, for two reasons: First, although I have no trouble believing that some cops actually joined the force out of a naive desire to protect the defenseless, and that they believe in their own hearts they will resign if ever ordered to violate someone's basic constitutional rights ... those cops are fooling themselves. Who could make it all the way through the academy without realizing he or she will be asked to rough up and bust people for possessing intoxicants less dangerous than legal alcohol ... intoxicants which we all know were only outlawed in the first place because they were the drugs of choice of our black, Mexican and Asian minorities? Who could make it through the academy without realizing he or she will be expected to enthusiastically participate in sending people -- but only poor people -- to prison for possessing weapons less dangerous than those handy in the trunk of most patrol cars ... despite the obvious ban on such persecution in the plain language of the Second Amendment? Who could spend a month on the beat without learning such "tricks of the trade" as the infamous "command voice," the "question that sounds like an order" which allows police to routinely bypass the Constitution when it comes to tricking or bullying folks into "voluntarily" waiving their right to be free of warrantless searches? When do these "good cops" plan to resign? But the second reason all Metro police must and will be treated with considerably less trust following the murder of Daniel Mendoza comes in the form of a simple question: Why do police wear uniforms? Think about it. If you were drafted and sent overseas to fight a war, and saw someone running toward you, carrying a rifle and wearing an enemy uniform, how long would you spend trying to determine whether said advancing gentleman was a "good enemy soldier" or a "bad enemy soldier"? No time at all. Uniforms are designed to help you make an instantaneous decision not to shoot a "friendly." You shoot the bad uniform. Do cops on duty want to be treated as individuals? Do they expect us to take the time to form an individual judgment about whether we should obey them each time they give an order, depending on whether they seem like "good cops" or "bad cops"? They do not. They expect us to obey the uniform, and the gun. That's why they do their best to all look alike. No, I don't mean to say anyone should go around shooting cops at random. Please don't do that. But they can't have it both ways. Police officers cannot say "Don't question me; obey the uniform," when it suits them, but then turn around and whine "The actions of a few bad apples in uniform shouldn't make folks lose confidence in the honesty of all other cops." At least, they can no longer expect me to say it for them. Let's face it. The old screening process, designed to make sure cops are solid, mature, thoughtful men with the experience to calmly stare down a mob ("one riot, one Texas Ranger," as the old saying went) has long since been abandoned as we rush to bloat the ranks of "the khaki gang" with enough gung ho young high school bullies to enforce more and more laws -- all-embracing webs of laws which only make society more chaotic, diminishing respect for a legal code no one can keep track of, which police are thus left free to enforce more and more selectively, based mainly on who cowers with proper respect, and who mouths off. . . . If you shoot us down like animals, we may cower for a time. But when we see no other escape, and finally turn on you, do not think that then you can say "Hang on now, be reasonable; let's talk." Seeing that the badger is a small, inoffensive-looking creature, many have considered cornering, capturing, and domesticating him. But no one has ever tried it twice.

From the March 23, 1997 column:

"You are delusional, angry to the point of blindness, and just foolish if you think that those who've enforced a policy that they're employed to enforce should be subjected to a 'forced dosing.' I do hope you were kidding. If you have a problem with the policy which those enforcement officers didn't create, that's fine, but to say that they should be subjected to inhumane treatment in the name of 'your cause' is callous, in flagrant disregard of human rights and respect, and vicious." I responded: Gosh, I certainly hope we didn't hang anyone at Nuremberg for "enforcing a policy that they were employed to enforce," and "which those enforcement officers didn't create." I'm sure our policy there was to punish no one for depriving another of his God-given human and civil rights, so long as he first donned a uniform and "followed orders" ... wasn't it? . . . If you do NOT believe the majority has such a right to impose its will on others through armed force, then I welcome your vote to legalize all drug use. If you DO believe the majority has such a right, then what possible objection can you have to my proposing that - if and when those who believe as I do attain majority control - we have a precisely similar right to FORCE unwanted drug use on all you benighted "straights"? . . . Yet those who fought a "War on Alcohol" were finally forced to acknowledge ... in 1933, and to the benefit of all ... that their police-state efforts had never succeeded in manufacturing anything but massive social pathologies. When do YOU plan to stop torturing, beating, murdering, imprisoning and impoverishing others (or hiring surrogates to do so), for their personal choices, to placate your own personal demons? Of course, you have an alternative. You can embrace the case for personal liberty NOW. It's entirely up to you. The problem with these fearless Drug Warriors - like so many who fall in love with the uniforms and the adrenalin rush of "night exercises" against the defenseless and the unprepared - is that they never stop to think what actually, usually happens to folks who start a war of aggression ... and lose. What generally happens is that they are all killed, sold into slavery, or (if the victors are feeling particularly charitable) locked up in prisoner-of-war camps while the victors get children on their women, and teach the resulting tots to play baseball. They have attacked us, by surprise, in our homes in the dark of night. They have violated our Bill of Rights. They have shot us, jailed us, terrorized us, seized our homes, bank accounts and property. They have ruined our lives and our peace of mind. They have made "registered criminals" of dying cancer patients and the doctors who dared to prescribe them enough opiates to soothe their pain and allow them a few peaceful final days with their families. We have for far too long allowed these life-hating zealots to proceed on the unchallenged assumption that if they lose their "War on Drugs" they'll be allowed to simply shrug, say "What the heck, we meant well" and live out their years -- on pensions funded by our tax dollars -- fishing on the lake. Instead, we must impress on these characters a replacement paradigm. They have launched and fought an aggressive war against a peaceful people, who wanted only to control their own bodies, their own medical practices, their own states of consciousness. The most extreme response would be to assert our moral right to kill unprovoked violent aggressors, in self-defense. If we're feeling more kind-hearted, we of course can apply their own doctrine - the doctrine that the majority has some moral right to enforce its ideas about "proper" states of consciousness on others - against them, locking them up and dosing them with a randomized selection of consciousness-altering drugs until they are babbling, harmless burn-outs, no longer able to endanger our children. If they don't like these options, I've already proposed that we offer them a limited window of opportunity to drop to their knees, apologize for the trouble their insane religious zealotry has caused us all, and plead for amnesty. What's "vicious" about that?
Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at Now reaching more than a million readers, the column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127. Ask the editor why your daily newspaper doesn't carry "The Libertarian."


Back to Modern Militiaman, Issue #5
Back to The Patriot Coalition?
Back to Patrick Henry On-Line