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 
vin@lvrj.com.
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

.