LTE's from Undergrounders

[Dave Ridley]

Sent to Telegraph:

In "No reason to repeal N.H. hate-crime law," Feb. 4, you argue against state reps Ed Bicknell and Dan Itse, opposing their long-shot effort to repeal the state's hate crime law.   Without getting too deeply into that precise debate, let me take issue with the assumptions underpinning your editorial.  You assume that individuals belonging to minority groups should depend on the government to protect them.  Yes, government has a role here, but it is not a reliable protector.  It's a clumsy contraption beyond the control of the victim.   Sometimes it saves the day, sometimes it gets there in time to draw your body outline and sometimes it is an outright *enabler* of hate crime.   

Let's say a nice local Jewish family looks out their window, sees two hooded figures burning something in their yard.  Let's assume the parents are members, in good standing, of Jews for the Protection of Firearms Ownership.   Maybe the mother is a crack shot and puts a round or two through the chest of one gap-toothed supremacists (Congratulations ma'am, you just cut the state Klan population by half)!

Imagine the troubles such an act of charity would land this lady in... not from whitehoods but from the authorities!  She would likely face years of legal woes depending on the zeal of the prosecutor.  Maybe the bad guys or their families will use the government against them via lawsuit.  Her whole family could face financial ruin or worse.

Instead of fawning over hate crime (thought-crime) laws, maybe we should rethink some of the laws that overrestrict minorities (and all decent folk) from defending their own persons and property.

[AlanM]

Dada,
I like it. 

[GT]

Sent to Telegraph:

In "No reason to repeal N.H. hate-crime law," Feb. 4, you argue against state reps Ed Bicknell and Dan Itse, opposing their long-shot effort to repeal the state's hate crime law.? ?Without getting too deeply into that precise debate, let me take issue with the assumptions underpinning your editorial.? You assume that individuals belonging to minority groups should depend on the government to protect them.? Yes, government has a role here, but it is not a reliable protector.? It's a clumsy contraption beyond the control of the victim.? ?Sometimes it saves the day, sometimes it gets there in time to draw your body outline and sometimes it is an outright *enabler* of hate crime.? ?

Let's say a nice local Jewish family looks out their window, sees two hooded figures burning something in their yard.? Let's assume the parents are members, in good standing, of Jews for the Protection of Firearms Ownership.? ?Maybe the mother is a crack shot and puts a round or two through the chest of one gap-toothed supremacists (Congratulations ma'am, you just cut the state Klan population by half)!

Imagine the troubles such an act of charity would land this lady in... not from whitehoods but from the authorities!? She would likely face years of legal woes depending on the zeal of the prosecutor.? Maybe the bad guys or their families will use the government against them via lawsuit.? Her whole family could face financial ruin or worse.

Instead of fawning over hate crime (thought-crime) laws, maybe we should rethink some of the laws that overrestrict minorities (and all decent folk) from defending their own persons and property.

Do you open fire on two kids smashing your mailbox too?

[Pat K]

Yes you do- but you use roman candels, were not kill hungry just protective

[Kat Kanning]

Good one, Dave.

[Dave Ridley]

GDouglas wrote:

<<Do you open fire on two kids smashing your mailbox too?>>

I'm thinking you should have the right and be able to use your discretion.   Maybe I'm extreme.   

I'd probably fire a warning shot in either case, but I'd be more likely to aim for the chest if I thought they represented a long term threat.

[GT]

My point is why would you shoot at a member of the KKK and not the kid smashing your mailbox. They are both trespassing and both destroying personal property. Taking a shot at a the Klan implies that because of what they are (or are thinking) requires a more drastic response. Isn't the whole point of getting rid of hate crime legislation to remove punishing some one for what they are thinking?

Personaly I would not shoot at either of them, Kids or Klan. I might step out on the porch with a shot gun and tell them to get out. One of them ponding on the door with a bat would be different.

I'm am not defending the KKK at all. In my perfect world they would not exist.

[Dave Ridley]

Sent to Laconia paper

Dear folks at the Citizen:

In your Feb. 14 editorial "Medicaid:  It's broke; now fix it," you argue
that New Hampshire has been cheating the Feds out of Medicaid money.
On the whole, it is the other way around.  The District of Coercion steals
around a buck from N.H. for every eighty cents it sends back (source: lfod.org).

The real cheater is the Constitutionally-challenged Federal government.  Were this
nation's Founders alive today they would be in the woods waging a shooting war against
it.  In their absence, or until we ditch Federal programs entirely, a little counter-cheating
will have to do.

[Dave Ridley]

Glenn I think you make a good point; but there is a difference between government judging thought and an individual judging thought.   That's why I'm comfortable with an individual having this latitude to discriminate but not the governmnet.   Not an issue I'd fight all day over, but whenever Bick and company are out on a limb I'm going to generally try and back 'em.

[Dave Ridley]

Rodinia is posting this as an LTE somewhere but posted it first here on a different thread

----

Hello fellow NH citizens,

My name is Suzanne. I spoke in opposition to HB705 on Thursday. I am not affiliated with any organization.

It is my feeling that the majority of you aren?t grasping the big picture here. The big picture is Liberty.

Liberty;

The quality or state of being free:

A: the power to do as one pleases

B: freedom from physical restraint

C: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control

D: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges   

  E: the power of choice.


Liberty is what our founding fathers fought and died for. Liberty is unalienable and constitutionally protected. I?m tired of politics by hear-say impeding on my life and rights. If you don?t know what you are talking about, either learn, or keep quiet.

Seatbelt mandates garner the states who submit higher compliance numbers a reward. There is a motive for this mandate.

I?m not disagreeing with claims that seatbelts save lives. That isn?t what this mandate is about... This is about suffocating restriction and control.

That, and a concept called ?social cost theory? Those interested, look it up. I?ll say this about it; cheeseburgers, cigarettes and alcohol are all still legal. For now.

My argument is founded with the knowledge that I am an individual, free to make choices regarding my body. If I am forced to buckle up, I?m under the false assumption that I am safer, and so is everyone else. That?s just human nature.

People will drive more aggressive and less safe, increasing the number of accidents.

The people who support this bill aren?t giving you the benefit of the doubt. They assume they know what is best for you and you aren?t capable of making a responsible decision of your own free will.

"The spirit of 1776 is not dead. It has only been slumbering. The body of the American people is substantially republican. But their virtuous feelings have been played on by some fact with more fiction; they have been the dupes of artful maneuvers, and made for a moment to be willing instruments in forging chains for themselves. But time and truth have dissipated the delusion, and opened their eyes." ---Thomas Jefferson- March 12, 1799

[Dave Ridley]

Dear folks at the Union Leader:

In response to your guest editorial "A bipartisan deal can resolve education funding," by John H. Sununu and Eugene Van Loan...

Yes it would be good if the state's elected government can fix this issue to the advantage of taxpayers.  Yes a Constitutional amendment would be great, striking down the judges' authoritarian inroads against the peoples' right to limit state spending.  But ultimately these things may not happen.

The "Claremont court" has imposed upon us de facto taxation without representation.  If the current court repeats that trespass upon our liberties and the House remains unable to pass an amendment...we (the people, not the government) need a Plan C. 

What this would be I don't know...a property tax revolt?  A campaign of civil disobedience and protest?  Perhaps a grass roots brainstorming process is in order, and I *do* know the place to carry that out.  If any UL readers want to bounce this idea around and perhaps turn it into action, I and other constructively disgruntled folks will be waiting up for you on the forums at NHfree.com.  See you there!

[John]

   Dude. 

That's good!

[John]

Oh, has it been sent?

[Dave Ridley]

Ya I sent it on the 21st.   I have no way of telling whether it gets printed however.   I did get an invite from one of their editors to keep sending them LTEs,  so I'm assuming everything I send will appear  if they don't balk at the occasional URL references.

[Dave Ridley]

Sent to Sentinel in Keene:

Dear folks at the Sentinel:

I wanted to thank Keene school board member Karl Hecker and others who have worked to persuade the board to sell the unneeded administrative building at 34 West Street.  Now the issue is up as a warrant article for us voters to decide.  Whether you are a supporter of school spending or an anti-tax activist, this warrant article serves your interest and will help nudge the gridlocked board to action.   

Selling the building is expected to save the district hundreds of thousands a year which can either be given back to the taxpayers or spent on schools.   Right now it's being spent on something which closely resembles empty space.  I'm voting to sell!