From: MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: REstriction!
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:42:27 GMT
 <1992Oct15.192246.10821@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1992Oct15.192246.10821@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>, billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com
(bill nelson) says:
>
>wb9omc@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) writes:
>: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>:
>: >Just how many of you complaining about this have been in favor of the
>: >War on Drugs and Civil Forfeiture or Gun Control/banning (including the
>: >bans on automatic weapons and "assault weapons")?  All of you who were,
>: >or still are, in favor of one of the above is a hypocrite.
>:
>:       This group isn't about drugs or guns.  If you want to talk about drugs
>: and/or guns, take it to an appropriate group, OK?
>
>That is a straw man argument. The posting was about losing rights - I simply
>listed other rights that are disappearing or have disappeared.
>
>: >Bah!  Go away and cry at home - you are getting exactly what you deserve.
>:
>:       I'd like to know just exactly how you figure we "deserve" to
>: have our rights stripped away.  Sounds to me like you should be running
>: some Gulag in Siberia for the KGB......
>
>How about reading the statement in context? Or are you just using the
>favorite political practice of "out of context quotes"?
>
>Just what are you getting? A law that can be easily and inexpensively
>circumvented, if desired. I do not see that it is really hurting anyone
>in any way. I agree that it is a foolish law - not unusual for our
>government.
>
>: I said:
>: >:    If any of you are attached to the Clinton/Gore campaign or know
>: >: someone who is, get the word to them NOW.  Point out what has happened
>and
>: >: give them some ammunition to use to get Bush OUT of the White House.
>:
>: He said:
>: >There is a good chance that Gore voted for the ban. Clinton and Gore both
>: >appear to believe that government should be running more of our lives - not
>: >less.
>:
>:       Instead of coming here and flaming me/us without first having looked
>up
>: how anyone voted on it.....
>
>Flame? Is that what you call my response?  OK - I guess that making a
>statement
>that a person, who fits a certain set of conditions is a hypocrite could be
>considered a flame.
>
>: "There is a good chance that Gore voted for the ban."
>:
>: .......if you want to flame Gore, make sure he actually DID vote for it,
>first.
>: This is alt.Bill.doesn't.like.Gore.
>
>Gore and Clinton are both anti-drug, anti-gun, etc. That is why I said that
>there is a good chance that he voted for the ban. Nowhere did I state that
>he did. Even with these, to me, bad points, I will still probably vote for
>Clinton/Gore.
>
>: I said:
>: >:    If we stand by and let the cellular lobby roll over us....if we
>: >: stand by and play dead on HR1674, we will start losing our rights
>: >: to free radio reception just as William suggested.  Every special
>interest
>: >: group will come out of the woodwork....
>:
>: He said:
>: >They did that years ago. But, of course, you didn't pay attention -  did   ?
>you
>:
>:       If you are referring to the ECPA, by chance, I stood opposed to it
>then
>: and I STILL stand opposed to it.  If you want to bitch at somebody, go bitch
>: at all the lemmings that don't bother to complain.  As for those of us who
>: are actively calling and writing to our congresscritters (and periodically
>: voting against those that suck), GET OFF MY BACK.
>
>Well, I was writing and complaining and voting right along with you. No, I
>was not talking about the ECPA - although I was/am also opposed to it. It is
>all the other rights that we are losing, or have lost, that I was referring
>to.
>
>:       Bill, I don't know if you got up on the wrong side of the bed or
>: if you just decided to be an asshole today.  Maybe you're one of these
>: types that likes to bait people into flame wars.
>
>My response was not directed at you - I don't know you. It was directed at
>the attitude I perceived being projected in your posting. It was also
>directed at all the other people who also appear to be concerned with only
>one issue. If you consider this being an asshole, then I was being an
>asshole.
>
>If I were interested in flame wars, I would call you names like "narrow
>minded bigot with your head up your ass". However, even if I did believe
>that you were such a person (which I don't, yet), I would not make such
>a posting on usenet. I would keep it to e-mail - where such things belong.
>
>:       I will not get into a protracted flame war with you, period.  I
>: have posted one defense of myself and anything else will be a waste of MY
>: time, since I'm fighting HR1674 and NOT you, and a waste of this
>: newsgroup.
>
>I was not attacking you - please try not to take everything so personally.
>As I stated above, I was commenting on an attitude.
>
>:       If you have a point, MAKE IT. Otherwise take your pointless rambling
>: flames to alt.flame and let us get on with the radio and scanner
>: business.
>
>I made a point - which it appears you overlooked in your zeal to find a
>personal attack in the posting. I have also made several points in my
>response to your latest posting. Please read it with a more open mind.
>
>If my comments were meant for you alone - I would send e-mail. However,
>I am hoping others will also think about what you and I have written and
>do some thinking themselves. HR1674 is just a trivial little blip in the
>losses of freedom/rights we are experiencing in this country. If you
>wish to limit your fight to that one little issue, that is your right.
>However, I am not going to sit back until they come for me. I am going
>to speak out and fight any law/policy that I see that reduces personal
>freedom/rights.
>
>Bill

It seems that many who scream the loudest when their rights are violated,
are right up there in the forefront, when it comes to either violating
the rights of other, or watching them be violated, and like the non Jewish
Germans, wonder why there is no one left to stand up for their rights.
The government wants to keep us from joining together, it is much easier
to take our rights away piece by piece.  Bush/Clinton are no different,
they are just starting at different places.  It's really so simple,
if we want others to fight for our rights, we must be prepared to also
fight for theirs, whether we agree with them, or they affect us at all.
That goes for radio frequencies, abortion, gun ownership, religious or
sexual practices, and all the of the other areas in which the government is
attempting to make us less free.

Michael G. Barbitta
KD6OAY
NRA

Standard Disclaimers apply