JPFO Alerts


Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc.
P.O. Box 270143
Hartford, WI 53027

Phone (800) 869-1884
Fax (425) 451-3959

August 6, 2001

Additional remarks about "On nuclear weapons and the 'well-regulated militia'"

by Vin Suprynowicz

Our readers have sent us additional remarks about the Alerts for August 1st and 3rd by Vin Suprynowicz. Mr. Suprynowicz has also sent us additional comments.

All for guns and guns for all. Any citizen should be able to possess any weapon he desires and which ever his means will allow him. And that includes not only firearms of any and all types but explosives from firecrackers to ANFO to neutron bombs if his wallet will allow it.

A Reader

Dear Vin,

lest we should forget, the Gun Control Act of 1934 was a copy of a Nazi law, leading to the disarmament of the people, to subjogate and exterminate them.

Remember Sarah Brady's statement, "our goal of making a socialist America, cannot succeed, unless those who oppose us have been disarmed."

The Soviet and German laws, should prove that a helpless public, are only targets for more moronic laws, 20 million Soviets died by that 1929 law, 15 to 20 million by Germany by their 1933 law, till the end of World War 2.

I will not allow myself to be disarmed by the Government I own a few weapons, and I practice with them, I can hit a five gallon bucket at 500 yards with my M-1 and know how to lead a target, I am well practiced. Nice talking to you. Thanks.

A Reader

Dear Vin:

Given the enormous number of firearms laws in America, the number totaling between 20-25,000 (I've heard various numbers quoted), would you agree that those laws are nothing more than 20-25,000 infringements on our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms? I only wonder how the US Supreme Court has failed to discharge its duties in keeping the executive and legislative branches in check. Is that not the job of the US Supreme Court? To ensure that all legislative acts are indeed in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America? This is extremely troubling.

In addition, how is it that the citizenry of this nation have allowed the rights of the American gun owners to begin sliding to the way of the dinosaur? The importance of the right of the people to keep and bear arms is very obvious, as it is detailed in the 2nd Amendment, not 7th, 8th, 9th, or 10th. This doesn't make the other Constitutional Amendments any less valuable, but to document a right of such magnitude, so high on the list within the Bill of Rights, clearly indicates how much value the Founding Fathers had on the manner in which the citizens could defend their liberty. After all, they are the ones who actually had to endure the tyranny of the British crown and placed their very lives on the line to achieve independence from England. I think people are so limited in purview and ignorant of history that they cannot understand the severity of the actions that were taken to create the United States. It is baffling how so many in this nation can be so apathetic.

The initiative taken by our government to place such rigid restrictions on firearms ownership, all of which are unconstitutional (in my opinion), is obviously a nefarious effort for domination of the people. What else could it be? The old song and dance about "we need to make our society safer" is complete crap.The penalties for murder are the same regardless of whether a victim is shot, stabbed, strangled, beaten, or hanged. A person having been shot is no more dead than one that has been stabbed. People fail to accept that there are more serious underlying reasons within our country which cause violence to occur. The breakdown and much popular trend of destroying religious institutions and the basic family structure come to mind, but no, that couldn't possibly be a cause. Not in the mind of the apologist, liberal do-gooders who are bent on casting blame toward anything but the people who make the choices.

Anyway, once disarmed, the Constitution can easily be scrapped by those in power and while the people are stuck in the middle and sucking on the aftermath. That is a day I pray I never live to see. Please keep up the good fight.

A Reader

KURT==> You start out, "If Joe citizen exercises his right to build a nuclear device ..."

VIN==> Thanks for conceding he has that right.

KURT==> You then say "I generally think of militia arms as weapons that can be carried and operated by a single person -- localized tactical weapons, not strategic nuclear weapons."

VIN=> Fine. You have every right to think that, and no one can require you to take up, learn to use, or possess any other kind of weapon if you don't want to. Others may "think" their ideal and only militia weapon should be a black powder muzzle-loader. Fine with me.

VIN==> I, on the other hand, think a perfect militia weapon -- one which I'd like to save up and buy at surplus and store in the side yard -- would be a six-wheeled self-propelled 155mm cannon, with a few thousand rounds for practice, out in the desert.

VIN==> What's your point -- that someone shouldn't "allow" me to buy, own, or drive around in such a device, because I hypothetically "might be" a Red Chinese agent?

Kurt replied (in part):

No, my point in positing exclusion of nuclear weapons from "arms" which any man might own, is the possibility of wiping an entire country off the map. Think what a great bargaining tool nukes would be. Time Warner/AOL might advertise, "buy our products and we won't nuke you."

Do you honestly think that having nukes in the hands of every man would be a net "good"?

(etc. etc.)

Hi, Kurt --

You're repeating yourself.

What is this "positing exclusion" crap? We're supposed to "posit" that it would be a good idea for God to send angels to make all the bad nukes disappear in a cloud of fairy dust?

These are weasel words. Are you arguing that the central government in Washington has some delegated authority to stop me from making or buying a nuclear weapon, or not? If it has such a delegated authority, where is it written down? How do you square it with the stern commandment that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? Surely you're not arguing that a nuclear weapon isn't an "arm." You sure seem mighty scared of them, if you think they're inert and have no warlike use.

Does your fear of death outweigh your love of liberty?

We've already TRIED it your way -- allowing some "wiser, central government authority" to decide what kind of weapons should be left in the hands of the citizen militia -- the militia which the Founders guaranteed us would ALWAYS be left able to outgun any standing army which the federals could ever field against their own citizens on this continent.

The Viper Militia in Arizona? All in jail for "conspiracy" to own a few machine guns and practice blowing up a few desert sand dunes with fertilizer and diesel oil.

The leaders of the militias of Macon, Ga., and New Hampshire and West Virginia? All imprisoned after being framed by government infiltrators for conspiracy to possess stolen property -- stolen and delivered to them by the government agents provocateurs themselves, in each and every case.

The ability of the average American wage-earner today to go out and buy a machine gun? Gone.

We've TRIED it your way. Once we abandon the PRINCIPLE that each and every private citizen has a God-given unalienable right to possess ANY weapon which the government itself posesses (providing he can either figure out how to manufacture it, or save up enough to buy it) all we have left is: "OK, we'll trust the central authority to 'allow' us to possess whatever weapons IT believes we need to acquit our 'militia duty.' "

If you really can't figure out where this will lead, look to England and Australia. Heck, look to New Jersey or Cook County.

That is to say, it will leave us disarmed. And if you don't know where THAT leads, go back and re-read Lethal Laws.

Your argument seems to be, "It's OK to let the federals have a monopoly on nukes, since they've already demonstrated that if we grant them THAT one concession, they'll happily allow the average citizen free ownership and target practice with machine guns, tanks, and shoulder-launched heat-seeking missiles."

No they won't. We already TRIED that. The notion that I'm "free" to buy one of these weapons today is a cruel joke. It's illegal to manufacture or import them except for "law enforcement" use. This has driven up the price of what few First World War souvenirs still circulate from the couple hundred bucks they'd sell for on the free market to OVER $10,000 APIECE. And I don't believe you or I could buy a replacement round for an anti-tank missile launcher even at that price, no matter HOW many federal taxes we paid and forms we filled out.

-- Vin Suprynowicz

VIN==> I know for a FACT the Special Operations Command down in Florida has thousands of trained "shooters" and scores of "back-pack nukes" available, which they could infiltrate into China (or Idaho) and detonate next month, if they wanted to.

Kurt replied:

RDJTF/REDCOM? You'll have to cite a source for that. For now let's just say I doubt it.

Interesting. You argue the federals should be allowed to continue disarming us at will (oh, I'm sorry, you're going to merely write a letter to your congressman, and they'll promptly repeal all 20,000 existing gun control laws) because the Red Chinese have 100 secret agents in place who would know where to buy plutonium and how to build suitcase nukes the moment this process was made technically legal ... yet you don't believe the UNITED STATES has any back-pack nukes, or the ability to deliver them?

-- Vin Suprynowicz

VIN==> Welcome to the nuclear age. Just how severe a police state would you be willing to submit to, if they could "guarantee" you none of your neighbors will ever own a "prohibited weapon" ... while the govenrment retains all it wants?

Kurt replied:

Not really. I'm not at all sure that any one man should have the power to wipe out a major city by himself.

And I'm not sure one species of mosquito should have the power to spread malaria among thousands of innocent victims, or that earthquakes or volcanoes should have the power to kill millions. What is the purpose in arguing that things which are "should not be"?

The Captain of the Enola Gay had that power. If he had informed his crew that he had "eyes only" orders to divert to Formosa and detonate his bomb there as an object lesson to the Japanese, his crew would almost certainly have obeyed those orders. Today, to accomplish this, the pilot of a B-2 bomber might have to first shoot his co-pilot. Other "single men" who have held this power recently have included noted drunkard Boris Yeltsin, heavy cocaine user Bill Clinton (who used to get blowjobs while talking foreign policy to congressmen on the phone), and the presidents of France, South Africa, Kazakhstan, and the Ukraine, whoever the hell they were last week.

-- Vin Suprynowicz

VIN==> Or are you going to join the parade of yelow-bellied compromisers, selling away my birthright as well as your own, whining, "Well OK, we certainly don't want to be called UNREASONABLE, so I'm willing to sell my neighbor's right to bear certain really DANGEROUS WEAPONS, along with my own, for the chimercial bowl of porridge you call 'security.' Where do I sign on to support your latest 'reasonable gun control' bill? ..."

Kurt replied:

Your argument is absurd. Posit biological weapons - one so virulent that upon a single release, half the population of the world is killed. To ensure everyone has the same "right" synthesize vials and distribute them to everyone in the world. There. We now all have the the power, individually, to kill half of the world's population. Welcome to Vin's utopia. Of course, it won't LAST long because now instead of blowing their brains out, people just break their vial. Even if only Americans had this power, your utopia would only last about 13 minutes. Considering only the 20,000 suicides with guns each year, 13 minutes would be about the expected waiting time. If you don't like biological weapons, how about a "community nuke" in each locality. Want to set one off? Just dial into the net and place your order. Hey! The 49ers beat the Bears! I'll show them! A few minutes later, a nuke is charged to my credit card and detonated atop the Golden Gate Bridge. The blast radius is 50 miles and 3 million people die, but it's a small price to pay for freedom, right? And they do arrest the guy and make sure he never does it again.

So -- others in this position have the luxury of asking the court to order the witness to answer at least ONE question directly , don't they? -- you "posit" that a strong central authority must be empowered and allowed (even if in doing so it violates all the written restrictions on its authority) to keep all your "crazy" neighbors from possessing weapons which the government thinks are "too dangerous to leave in private hands"? Yes or no? Have the "democratic, English-speaking, freedom-loving" governments of Britain and Australia recently ruled that this includes virtually all handguns and semiautomatic rifles and shotguns? Yes or no?

Your notion that in order to guarantee everyone a "right" to possess a biological weapon, I must fund a government agency to manufacture and deliver the stuff to every citizen, shows how desperate your absurd hypotheticals have become. The right of freedom of the press imposes no obligation on me to pay taxes to a central government agency which will then manufacture printing presses and deliver them to every citizen. You are dreaming up terrors so absurd as to be laughable. What a constricted, dark, and fear-infested world you must inhabit. I hope you sleep with the lights on.

Recently, I walked down a busy highway in upstate California. No sidewalks or guardrails. Hundreds of cars sped past me at 50 mph. By your estimate, it should have taken less than 13 minutes for one of those drunken, suicidal drivers to swerve his wheel and kill me along with himself. Yet I walked for hours, and no one even tried. Out of your irrational fear that most of your neighbors are "crazy" (indeed there are crazy people -- I watch them yell at lampposts every day. None can even afford a revolver, let alone a machine gun ... or a nuke) you would sell my birthright of freedom for the false "security" of the assurance that an all-powerful government will "do the right thing" and "protect our liberties"?

If you want that -- as both Jefferson and Franklin warned us on separate occasions -- you want what has never been, and will never be.

Back to reality for a second, Kurt: The U.S. government has FAILED at preventing Kazakh entrepreneurs from selling each other surplus Russian nuclear warheads. But it has SUCCEEDED in jailing thousands of Americans for exercising their Second Amendment right to own a machine gun (or a rifle with a barrel or wooden stock one inch "too short.") Yet you would authorize it to continue jailing your fellow-citizens for merely exercising their Second Amendment rights, in exchange for the promise it will continue to limit the spread of nukes ... at which it is failing miserably.

Would you also have allowed the jailing of Galileo Galilei in exchange for the promise of the church to keep gunpowder out of the hands of peasants and infidels?

You have chosen your side in this fight, and your allies. I hope you don't live to regret what they do with your support.

-- Vin Suprynowicz

The primary question would have to be the definition of "arms" and the best way to do that is to look up the meaning of the word at the time it was written. In Webster's 1828 Dictionary "arm" is described as:

1. "Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body." 4. "In law, arms are any thing which a man takes in his had in anger, to strike or assault another." "Arm" is defined as: 1. To furnish or equip with weapons, or means of offense, or defense; as to arm the militia." The Army had cannons and I may stand corrected but I do not remember the Militia having cannons, just what is properly defined as firearms. The weapons you are describing today, mortars, tanks, etc are properly described as destructive devices, however automatic firearms are not in that class. I wrote an article on "Interpreting the Constitution and the Second Amendment." -- the argument of allowing anyone that wants one to have destructive devices is simply one of the ways that the liberal side uses to take away from the meaning and importance of the Second Amendment in their attempt to subvert it.
For an option to donate to pro freedom causes, go to

A Reader

Let me ask K.A. what his standards for constitutional rights really are? Is the IInd Amdnt worthy of the same fierce defense and support rightly given to other portions of the BoR -- no more and certainly no less?

If K.A.'s answer is, no, then this conversation is at a end for reasons that should be obvious even to K.A.

If the answer be, yes, then let me paraphrase the query above:

"If Joe citizen exercises his right to build a personal computer with computer cracking software and turns out to be an agent of an enemy power, aren't we just providing free delivery?

"Seems to me all the Chinese or North Koreans or whatever would have to do is line up a 100 folks, plus or minus, have them assemble computers at various locations around the country, set the timers to all go off at once and attack computers all over the Internet, and leave the continent. No one could do anything about it until the billions of dollars of damage had been done - and by then bringing the perps to justice might be a moot point.

"The cops couldn't touch any of the treacherous 100 before the bombs blew because of the "Constitutional Right" to own computers."

Don't we have case law on exactly this point (except it was "communist literature" instead of computers) from the 1950s?

I an not aware of any proposals to ban possession of computers because some jerk out there can and has released worms like "sircam", which has already infected at least one FBI computer and released sensitive documents. Yet K.A. is apparently willing to concede the point without a struggle.

Shall we also ban copies of the Koran and Bible because preachers can use them to whip crowds into war frenzies, as they have for fourteen hundred and two thousand years, respectively?

Does K.A. not understand the legal concept of prior restraint, or why it is anathema to any Bill of Rights?

For a similar argument by analogy, see J. Neil Schulman, "The Unabridged Second Amendment", Gun Week, Sept 13, 1991, reprinted in J. Neil Schulman, Stopping Power, Synapse-Centurion, 1994.

Let us consider another argument. The Constitution gives to Congress power to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal (LMR). Art. I Sec. 10. A LMR is the legal distiction between a pirate and a privateer. Clearly, then, the Framers contemplated private possession of warships. We accept the notion that the IVth Amdnt protects possession of computers even though they did not exist when the Framers wrote it. Similarly, the right to possess warships extends to modern warships. Any modern warships. Including but not limited to nuclear armed and propelled aircraft carriers.

A Reader

And speaking of weapons of mass destruction.....

Has anyone here considered that the citizen-militia might be nullified by the governmental use of nuclear/chemical/biological weapons? If they would decide that it was OK to use gunships on a church and a house why wouldn't they use other, more devastating weapons on any who would oppose them?

Just a thought (that has bothered me a great deal)

A Reader

The lawyer is one of those assholes that would disarm us all because of all those crazies, terrorists etc. out there. Only in this case it happens to concern nukes. Did anybody feel safe when Clinton had his finger on the button? How about Saddam? the Iranians? the North Koreans? the Russians? any other criminal clique callng themselves a government?

A Reader

This talk about nuclear weapons -- if somehow some foreign power could round up 100 Americans, and somehow provide them with enough plutonium and tritium and the training to put 100 hydrogen bombs together, at 100 megatons each, and blow up 100 cities -- most people would hear about it on the radio or the 6 o'clock news on TV. The rest of the survivors would not know about it because they're listening to the rock stations that don't carry news.

There has always been scare propaganda, a la "On The Beach," that overstates the devastation caused by nuclear weapons. Sure, a major strategic weapon could wipe out a city core and produce major damage -- mostly from fires -- for quite a few miles around, and produce a substantial amount of downwind fallout. But, if a small tactical nuke went off a mile from you, you would hear the "boom" and, unless you were downwind, wouldn't have anything to worry about.

The idea that a nuclear war would turn the North American continent into a radioactive ash heap is just propaganda that was designed to demoralize the American people into disarmament.

Now, have you heard that the United Nations wants to declare small arms "weapons of mass destruction" because there are so many of them?

A Reader

It all boils down to the simple question ... do you trust your government (like the IRS, DEA, FBI)?

A Reader

I love this exchange. Here's something else I feel strongly about. I, personally, think that even former criminals, who have paid their debt to society, have the right to defend themselves with whatever type weapon they think is necessary for their personal protection. As long as we are both allowed to exercise the individual right of self-defense, I not going to be afraid of any former criminal with a gun. If he has evil intent, he just better pray I don't get to my forty-five first.

A Reader

Obviously, the fellow writing to Vin Suprynowicz about the Second Amendment has never heard of the "Special Atomic Demolition Munition," or SADM. This is a man-portable nuclear weapon that used to be issued to the U.S. Navy SEALs, among others. The SEALs were to use it by swiming it into an enemy harbor, arming it, and then swimming away. This has been documented in several widely-available books on the SEALs.

A Reader

What we've got to convince people of is: politics comes down to a simple relationship: Dynamic forces that CONTINUALLY try to dominate each other. Laws are irrelevant if the other guy hates you, or has been convinced you need to be eliminated (ala Hamas in the middle East, etc.), & has a bigger gun or more soldiers than you do.

Keep fighting

A Reader

Have read Vin Suprenowicz's thoughts on militias and I am in almost total agreement. My point of disagreement is on his lack of confidence in what can be accomplished with militias armed with 'deer rifles'. Sure, the government has the heavy weapons, but they would have to use extreme restraint in their use to prevent alienating the majority of the population. They may, or may not, care about that depending on the circumstances.

If history is to be believed, then we cannot discount the strong advantage that a lightly armed and motivated fighting force would have on a heavier armed force. Vietnam ring any bells? Government forces will, for the most part, be in uniform; the militia here in the U.S. will most likely be dressed as indigenous population. How are you going to sort out the wolves from the sheep? A scoped 'deer rifle' would be a weapon to be feared in the hands of such motivated individuals. ANYTHING in uniform would be a target for someone armed in this manner. Hit and run tactics would be impossible to guard against.

Something else to remember; it is almost a certainty that not all members of the armed forces and the national guard would take up arms against their fellow countrymen. Desertion would likely be rampant, to say the least. Probably right after they drew their arms and ammunition!

Another thought; even including local, state, and national (federal) police to the armed forces of the U.S., we still outnumber the forces that could be raised against us. Politicians pushing for the civilian disarmament would be at great risk, also.

Totally ugly scenario, to say the least.

Just thought I'd share a few thoughts on this dialogue. Take them for what they are worth.

A Reader

Sadly, while I tend to agree with most of what you say, in most of your columns, I believe your position approving a nuke in the garage of every person who can afford one is precisely the sort of ill-considered rhetoric which makes the pro-Second Amendment folks look bad and makes legislators afraid to associate with us. I assume you would rather return the US to a Constitutional government by peaceful means. But no matter. Your larger burden is to explain how equating nukes to guns is going to attract proponents of the right to bear arms. Without meaning any insult, I most sincerely hope that no elected official ever sees you as anything but the lunatic fringe on this issue or believes that I, as someone who supports the right to own militia arms (yes, even those "nasty" machine guns) am in any way in agreement with you on the issue of a nuke in every household.

I ask you one last time - are you really saying that you think there should be no limitations on who is allowed to possess nuclear and biological weapons?


Hi, Kurt --

And one more time, if we are Americans who attempt to onor and adhere to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, it is not up to either of us to say whether there "should be limitations on" who is allowed to possess any weapon ... nor you have any right to attempt to delegate such authority to the central government, nor do THEY have any right to accept and exercise any such power, even if a majority of you cringing victim disarmament facilitators and rape enablers vote to OK it because it seems "pragmatic and reasonable" to you.

(Which is a good thing, because the baby-killers you would thus empower to "decide these things for us" have demonstrated again and again they will NOT stop at limiting our access to nukes and biological weapons ... the point you refuse to acknowledge even as you keep endorsing "leaving it all up to them because they're so much more wiser and more responsible than normal mortals, who scare the bejesus out of me." Where is it you keep FINDING these angels to run "the government" for you? Thank goodness we can trust THEM never to abuse their monopoly on disease cultures. Why, if those programs were run by mere fallible, MORTAL men, they might have let half the men in the Tuskegee experiment die of untreated syphilis long after they'd proved penicillin was curing the rest, since after all, "they were only niggers." Yep, sure glad only the GOVERNMENT has a statutory monopoly on handling dangerous disease cultures. We can surely trust THEM.)

Finally, your argument is reduced to whining that arguing this issue from PRINCIPLE will make the pro-Second Amendment folks (actually meaning those who like you are willing to incrementally COMPROMISE AWAY all our Second Amendment rights in order to look "good") ... look "bad" -- that I am not allowed to defend principled positions unless I can show it's "going to attract" more supporters and dues-paying NRA members.

Awwwww. Heaven forfend that in joining any fight for freedom you might be made to "look bad," or ridiculed for associating with "wild-eyed, uncompromising constitutional wackos" ... who if nothing else giver you the chance to demonstrate by comparson how truly moderate you are. No, FAR more important that you be allowed to continue donning your gray slacks and blue blazer and getting your photo taken with "the congressman" at next years' fund-raising dinner. We all know how important to your line of work it can be to have those photos on the wall. Let's get our priorities straight, here. A few dozen women and children burned to a crisp by government gun regulators (the legitimacy of whose "modest, reasonable" regulations YOU support) as they attempt to confirm payment of a $200 tax? Hey, there are always going to be a few "collateral casualties" as we attempt to maintain our "mainstream credibility" ... aren't there?

Hee-haw! Political principles on the model of "The Family Feud." "Survey says ..."

You really think you can find an "acceptable compromise" that will restore our Second Amendment rights by winning majority electoral support? Even if you could (and you can't -- the other side has now indoctrinated two full generations of young stooges to hate and fear privately owned weapons in their youth propoganda camps -- the reproductive organ of the welfare/police state) what makes you think the federals would HONOR such a vote, any more than they're honoring the various statewide votes to OK the use of "medical marijuana"? Millions of gun owners have been voting for "more gun rights" for decades. The Republican politicians humor them while taking AWAY more gun rights ... every time. The system for "changing the law" that we were taught in eighth grade Civics class ISN'T WORKING ANY MORE.

I tell you one last time: There ARE no limitations on who is allowed to possess nuclear and biological weapons. In attempting to enforce such an unconstitutional ban, the federal government will and does seek to jail teen-agers who write journal articles revealing that the correct way to construct a collapsible plutonium core is out of hexagonal panels, like a soccer ball. In the end, such attempts will prove about as fruitful as medieval attempts to protect various "monopolies" on the secret of making gunpowder. But how many more of our freedoms and our very lives will the Quislings trade away in attempting to maintain your false sense of security, that "government will take care of it for us"?

Beside which, in attempting this hopeless thing, the central government violates TWO specific limits on its powers:

1) The Congress is granted no such power in Article I Section 8 (you haven't found any such empowerment, or you would have cited it -- while in fact, the power to grant "Letters of Marque" clearly anticipates private warships, which today would have to include privately-owned aircraft carriers carrying nuclear-armed planes and missiles; and 2) The Second Amendment specifically BANS any infringement on the personal, inidividual, God-given human right to "bear arms," which exists prior to the existence of any government, and thus depends on no government to decide whether my right to own ANY weapon capable of intimidating a potential tyrant into leaving me alone ... shall be "allowed."

But I guess that doesn't matter any more, does it? It's all kind of "theoretical," isn't it? Pointing out such problems is not likely to get me elected to public office next year ... and it could even hurt YOUR chances, if you're seen talking to me. :-)

-- Vin Suprynowicz

p.s. -- my source for the "20,000 shooters" under the command of the fellows at Fort MacDill, "one third of them on duty abroad at any given time," was the rear admiral who is now second in command there, in a public speech here in Las Vegas two weekends ago. I heard him say it. No, he did not confirm how many suitcase nukes he has available. I would not have expected him to. My sources for that are some fellows who have spent considerable time investigating a curious air crash in Gander, Newfoundland, a few years back. I do not pretend to know where they're warehoused.

Vin Suprynowicz

I enjoyed the letter you sent out. I agree with you 100%. Thanks for speaking out but be SURE AND LET YOUR CONGRESSMEN KNOW HOW WE ALL FEEL ABOUT OUR OWN PERSONAL ARMS., pistols , hunting rifles etc. Thanks for speaking out.

A Reader

I read with interest, the letter to Vin last week in which the writer claims to have fled to Canada for freedom. By that statement alone, I believe that Vin is being sucked into a useless discussion. The writer must be a plant to try to goad Vin into overplaying his hand or to trip him up. Canada has some of the most oppressive laws limiting freedom on the North American continent. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to possess firearms, state removal of children from fundamentalist parents, state attachment to the United Nations, Etc. All of these are under attack in Canada. The USA looks good compared to them and he leaves here to go to Canada so he can be free? I doubt his truthfulness. We here are under attack by the state over these same issues but not as severely as to the North. Do you really feel the writer is sincere?

A Reader

Vin Suprynowicz, assistant editorial page editor of the 180,000- circulation daily Las Vegas Review-Journal, is the only member of the "mainstream" media who uncompromisingly champions the absolute human right of individuals to defend themselves and their loved ones against all aggressors and predators -- uniformed or otherwise -- and to keep and bear the means to get it done.

Vin has been a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist for the past nine years. He authored the book Send in the Waco Killers: Essays on the Freedom Movement, 1993-1998 (the 1999 "Freedom Book of the Year.") Now, he's launched his latest weapon in the fight for individual freedom, the monthly newsletter Privacy Alert -- a sharp-edged tool that everyone can use to increase their own freedom, while reaching out to help friends and loved ones "get on board," as well.

More than just the hardest-hitting newsletter you'll find covering virtually everything related to protecting your personal and financial privacy (or, as Vin likes to put it, "Your guns, your gold, your freedom,")

Privacy Alert also gives you the benefit of Vin's 25 years as a professional investigative journalist. You get the low-down on the uses and misuses of SSNs, alternate IDs, confidential banking facilities, onshore and offshore privacy havens, anonymous credit cards ...

But that's only the half of it. With Privacy Alert you also get the best of Vin Suprynowicz: longer pieces that are likely to run in any daily newspaper -- in-depth reports fresh out of today's news on a wide range of issues that graphically and with heart-rending poignancy demonstrate the reasons WHY it has become so important for us all to learn how to protect ourselves from snoops, con artists, vindictive ex-spouses, unscrupulous business people, ambulance chasers, intrusive government child-snatchers, and regulators and taxmen of every stripe.

All with the credibility of a reliable, trained, experienced American newsman with an anti-establishment bent.

For complete information on Vin's newsletter, Privacy Alert -- how to subscribe; how to order his world-changing book -- send e-mail to, or call 775-348-8591.

Call by Aug. 14 and mention JPFO: You'll be eligible for an extra bonus if you subscribe -- 13 months for the price of 12, on top of all other current bonuses.

Are you a member of JPFO? See for information, forms, and links you can use to become a member!
A New Special Offer: If you join JPFO (or renew your membership) for a Two-Year period, we will send you a free JPFO Logo lapel pin, or a Bill of Rights Day lapel pin. See the pins!
Life Membership: $500 or $41.67/month for 12 months.

See our special on the Photon Micro-Light II Personal Flashlight:
4-cents per minute long distance
Copyright 2001 JPFO, Inc. and the Authors. Permission is granted to reproduce this alert in full, so long as the JPFO contact information is included.
JPFO ALERTS is provided as a free service to the Internet Community. If you wish to help support this service, consider joining JPFO! $20/year (no, you don't have to be Jewish!)

To subscribe via e-mail to JPFO Alerts: send a blank e-mail to:

To Un-subscribe to JPFO Alerts: send a blank e-mail to:

In either case, respond to the confirmation message you will get back.

[ JPFO Home  >  Alerts  >  Additional remarks about "On nuclear weapons and the 'well-regulated militia'", by Vin Suprynowicz ]
© 2001 JPFO < >