Vin Suprynowicz visits New Hampshire; governor 'horrified'

Las Vegas Review Journal ^ | 10/13 | Vin Suprynowicz

[from occupied ga]

I was condemned by the governor of New Hampshire last week.

It started when the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire invited me to give the dinner speech at their annual convention in Nashua Sept. 28. I spoke about my latest book, "The Ballad of Carl Drega."

Roger Talbot, a reporter for the Manchester Union-Leader, took me aside and suggested the controversy now raging over the book in New England may result as much as anything from the cover. It features a painting by Scott Bieser which depicts Boston rebels in a darkened church in the early 1770s, passing out muskets in preparation for the Boston Tea Party, or the successful resistance to Gen. Gage's attempt to seize unregistered assault weapons at Lexington. Scott improved on my original conception, depicting the arms being handed out not as ancient flintlocks but instead as modern-day AR-15s.

Any piece of artwork can be interpreted in many ways. But I agree with readers who tell me the cover -- with a rifle being handed toward the viewer as the militiamen mill about with their newly issued arms -- asks, "Have you considered what you might be willing to do to defend our liberties ... and when?"

Roger's story ran in the Sept. 29 edition of New Hampshire's biggest daily. It notes that my book "retells the story of [Carl Drega] who killed four people in a Colebrook shooting spree as an introduction to a series of essays on what Suprynowicz views as the loss of personal freedom to the oppressive encroachment of government. ...

"The subtitle of Suprynowicz's 696-page book is 'Essays on the Freedom Movement, 1994 to 2001.' His musing covers a wide and critical spectrum -- from the seemingly ever-present regulation of government, to taxation, the war on drugs, environmentalism, the public school system, the right to private property and the rights to bear arms. ...

" 'I am not -- repeat, not -- advising anyone to go forth and start shooting cops and bureaucrats,' Suprynowicz wrote on page 23 in the book that begins with the story of Drega who lashed out with a gun after years of frustrating legal duels over what he considered the government's intrusion into his privacy and his right to do what he wished with his property. ...

"Drega was 62 on Aug. 19, 1997, when he shot dead two state troopers who had stopped his rust-encrusted truck; a lawyer and part-time judge who had opposed him as a town official; and a newspaper editor who tried to stop him. Two other lawmen were wounded before Drega died in a shoot-out with about 20 officers in the woods in Brunswick, Vt. ..."

This, in turn, led to a press release being posted Sept. 30 on New Hampshire Gov. Jeanne Shaheen's official Web site headlined: "Governor Appalled at Attempts to Excuse Carl Drega."

The release reads that Gov. Shaheen is "horrified that anyone would attempt to find excuses for the actions of Carl Drega. Carl Drega was not oppressed; he was unwilling to follow the law. Carl Drega was not a modern-day patriot; he was a murderer. He killed four innocent people ... "

I wrote a polite response to Gov. Shaheen, thanking her for attending my talk -- since I knew she surely wouldn't have condemned my message without hearing it -- but chiding her for not identifying herself so that I could have autographed her copy of my book. I explained I was further confident that she would not have condemned that without having read it.

Within a few days, Michelle Dumas of Somersworth, N.H., wrote in to tell me about an editorial in the Foster's Daily Democrat regarding my appearance in the state. It included the following:

"Carl Drega slaughtered five people in Colebrook five years ago. ... Carl Drega was insane. There is nothing a democratic republic could possibly have done to drive him to commit such a series of outrageous acts. At best, he was delusional. At worst, he had devolved into a savage animal -- an animal society had every right to destroy. ...

"It takes someone who is intellectually dead to view Carl Drega or anyone like him as representative of the legitimate frustrations of the people of New Hampshire or other Americans."

Note that -- whether or not Carl Drega was insane -- the little New Hampshire daily actually asserts that anyone who ever forcibly resists government actions depriving us of our constitutional rights must be insane by definition, since, "There is nothing a democratic republic could possibly have done to drive him to commit such a series of outrageous acts."

This notion is, itself, ponderously dangerous and evil. Germany's Weimar Republic was a "democratic republic," which elected Hitler and the Nazis in a fair polling. Does that mean no resistance to the Nazis could be justified -- that anyone who tried to resist them must be judged "insane"?

Robert E. Lee resisted an armed invasion by the forces of the "democratic" United States. Whether or not his cause was just (and I can't find anything in my copy of the Constitution that bars secession), does that mean he was insane? If so, he's surely the most prominent insane person in American history ever to have a major university named for him.

If the Founding Fathers believed there could never be any cause for a sane man to take up arms to defend himself against abuses of authority by a "democratic republic," why did prominent New England federalist and founding father Noah Webster write in 1787 that the "supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States"?

Vin Suprynowicz, the Review-Journal's assistant editorial page editor, is author of "The Ballad of Carl Drega." (see Web site www.privacyalert.us.) His column appears Sunday.

[from occupied ga]

Once again the statists are horrified that anyone would forcibly resist their thievery and their thugs. I'm waiting for the usual drug warrior wannabes and jackboot lickers on the forum to condemn Suprynowicz. It seems that a great many people on this forum agree that the government must never be resisted by the peasants no matter what outrage is perpetrated on the aforesaid peasants.

[thedugal]

A bit hard to follow with no historical knowledge of the parties involved, but overall not a bad read. The fact that most Americans believe that it is unthinkable to take up arms against the government probably means its overdue. I still think we are more free than we are not, but I also see the potential for that to reverse within my lifetime.

[from occupied ga]

A more complete story of what happened is here It doesn't go into the background very much, but it does give the facts of the day.

[fporretto]

Vin Suprynowicz has been pilloried by most of the political Establishment for telling of Drega, and of his response to the bureaucratic abuse he received. As far as I can tell, Suprynowicz is in the right on this: Drega's mental dissolution was indeed a result of governmental abuse delivered by bureaucrats acting under color of law.

The only charge that can be leveled at Suprynowicz that has any sticking power is that, in describing Drega's spree as a response to political abuse, he was guilty of bad taste. This, in the age of the Clintons, Waco, and Ruby Ridge.

The underlying controversy seems to be whether citizens, acting individually or in concert, have a right to oppose the State by force of arms.

It is indeed the citizen's prerogative to take up arms against the State when, in his opinion, the State has become an oppressor. Not everyone will agree with such a decision; only about 10% of the American colonists explicitly aligned themselves with the rebels. The outcome is not guaranteed. But it is in the nature of things that an entity that is defined by its privilege of using force can be limited or deposed in no other way.

If we look closely at the Drega affair, Suprynowicz's elevation of it to symbolic status (not to mention a perfect example of what even the lowest cur will do if abused sufficiently), and the Establishment response to it all, what we see is the justification for the right to keep and bear arms -- and the reason those who oppose it want to take it away.

Keep at 'em, Vin.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

[GraniteStateMan]

For your information, Carl Drega was nothing more than a pathologically angry individual who, because he couldn't live by the land usage rules in his town, cruelly executed innocent people who had caused him no harm. He was the worst type of nut-case vermin, and the people of New Hampshire raised the roof with cheers when the news reports confirmed he was shot dead in a gun battle with law enforcement.

[nygoose]

I think I'll go along with Vin on this one.

[from occupied ga]

You say "Carl Drega was nothing more than a pathologically angry individual who, because he couldn't live by the land usage rules in his town, cruelly executed innocent people who had caused him no harm

This isn't how I read it at all. Your statment contains its own internal contradictions and appears to be at odds with the facts. First off, look at "land use rules" What are these except arbitrary and frequently capricious restrictions on what a person may do with his own property. If you are denied the use of your property, then you lose some of the value of this property and you are definitely harmed. Secondly it appears that the so-called innocent people had indeed caused Drega harm, from the fish and game person who reported Drega's attempt to fix his riverbank to the newspaper editors who mocked him, to the state cops who arrested him on the phoney baloney charge of having rust holes in the bed of his truck.

It appears that you are one of the masses who believe that the government must never be resisted. What's your opinion on Waco and Ruby Ridge?

[Catspaw]

So if we find out that the Beltway murderer is killing because of a zoning dispute or a grudge against the government, he (or she or they) can be elevated to symbolic status and we can give his (or her or their) actions a nod of understanding?

[SpartacusII]

That's a rather flawed argument. You can't compare random
shooting of civilians to Drega's provoked shooting of Govt officials.

[Catspaw]

Ah, I see. So if the Beltway killer was shooting government officials those murders can be justified?

[SpartacusII]

Not justified. Just a better argument.

[Hank Kerchief]

For your information, Carl Drega was nothing more than a pathologically angry individual...

And what was Carl Drega angry about. It wouldn't be an intrusive government that believe people don't have a right to use their property the way they wish, could it. It wouldn't be because a bunch of busy-bodies decided their own life was meaningless unless they are running other people's lives and use hired men with guns to force them to do what they wanted, would it?

...because he couldn't live by the land usage rules in his town,

Please tell us what "land usage rule" says one is not supposed to repair storm damage to their property, or must finish the siding of their house by a certain time. And what's with this "rule" stuff anyway. The is a land of laws that are supposed to be restricted by the constitution. Seems like these "rules" are the usual anti-fourth admendment regulations dictated by a bunch of town beaurocrats.

... executed (read defended himself agains those with guns) innocent (read government thugs) people who had caused him no harm (except to physically endanger him and his property).

He was the worst type of nut-case vermin... Of course that is how the government toady NH papers tried to portray him and those whose opinions are determined by the papers believe it. But then, he may have been nuts. You can only threaten, badger, hound, and interfere in people's lives for so long; there is only so much that any human being can take before they will go nuts. It really is, "live free or die."

...and the people of New Hampshire raised the roof with cheers when the news reports confirmed he was shot dead in a gun battle with law enforcement.... Well, that tells us where you were that day, sitting in the bar with the other massachusetts liberals who moved to NH. Only a bunch of liberal drunks and school teachers (or Islamic Jihadists) actually cheer when anyone gets shot.

Hank

[Catspaw]

So if someone has a "better argument," one can attain a rationale to murder? If one is in a dispute with the government, one can kill the government officials (and a newspaper editor) that "provoke" one into killing? Sounds like an overarching argument, more like the rationale usually used by defense attorneys when their client is about to be executed: he had a bad childhood, he was abused, it's their fault, it's society's fault--one can always find an excuse to justify any behaviors, including murder.

[from occupied ga]

Ah, I see. So if the Beltway killer was shooting government officials those murders can be justified

What a specious "argument"!

Are you saying that it is never justified to shoot government officials? If so then you undoubtedly disapproved of the militia's attack on general Gage's forces, and by your reasoning Washington, Jefferson, Adams etc were all criminals.

[strela]

Secondly it appears that the so-called innocent people had indeed caused Drega harm, from the fish and game person who reported Drega's attempt to fix his riverbank to the newspaper editors who mocked him, to the state cops who arrested him on the phoney baloney charge of having rust holes in the bed of his truck.

Sooooo, let me get this straight. Reporting, mocking, and enforcement of vehicle safety regulations are now capital crimes, and any wackjob kook like Drega can shoot whomever he wants? Lashing out at ridiculers with deadly force is the act of a retarded child, not an intelligent human being.

No wonder Vin Suprynowicz's "work" is laughed at in the civilized world - at least it will be until he (hopefully) pulls a William Cooper and commits suicide by cop at some future date.

[Oberon]

I'm waiting for the usual drug warrior wannabes and jackboot lickers on the forum to condemn Suprynowicz.

You taking bets on when Kevin Curry shows up? I bet it's before Post 50. How long do you think his post will be? Will he use any bold type?

[Rifleman]

I'm waiting for Avacado. That guy is a one man band for state worship.

[from occupied ga]

. Reporting, mocking, and enforcement of vehicle safety regulations are now capital crimes

So let me get this straight, there is, according to you anyway, never any justification of shooting government officials. According to you the militia who shot Gage's troops were not justtified. According to you the Jews who shot the SS in Warsaw were not justified. According to you the Poles who killed high government official Reinhardt Heidrich were criminals. Yes, I think I see your point of view. It is "Government uber alles."

Further if you actually bothered to consider the question of when is force against the government justified, rather than attempting to make a clever response (and failing miserably) you might have something to contribute to the discussion, but probably not.