From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: RE: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:14:53 GMT

In article <27AUG92.11530738@umbc1.umbc.edu>, williamf@umbc1.umbc.edu writes:

|>    Geez, this nonsense is really beginning to overflow.  You guys seem to 
|>    have no concept of American democracy and how it works.  The idea that 
|>    *any* American believes that our political institutions would allow the
|>    establishment of a private police force, armed to the hilt and responsive
|>    only to the president, betrays an insularity thats frightening.  

Yes, and you're so *cosmopolitan*.

Have you ever read a history book, outside of the bowdlerized high school
"history" books?  They're full of examples of good governments gone bad, and of
how governments always grasp more and more power, until they either collapse from
their own inefficiency, are overthrown by their people, or are toppled from the
outside.

The government's not your Mother, for crying out loud.  And they don't give a
rat's rosey red ass about anything but raw power, and lots of it.

And lots of Americans believe the government's on the wrong track, or Perot
wouldn't have been such an overnight sensation.  Not that Perot is any outsider
to Washington, or the savior of the country.

Hell, you don't even understand that the US is a republic, not a democracy.

|>    Heck, we've
|>    got several federal agencies, DEA, US Customs, Secret Service and FBI that
|>    are supposed to be fighting the war on crime and obviously failing at the
|>    task so why not a national police force?

So if something doesn't work, then we should get even more of it?

How's that nasty cranial injury healing, anyway?

|>    There's widespread agreement among
|>    law enforcement and political folks that the aforementioned agencies *don't*
|>    co-ordinate their effort well, don't share their resources and are jealous 
|>    of each other.

Thank goodness.

Efficient government is tyrannical, murderous government.

|>    Establishing a new agency by peeling off pieces of these 
|>    agencies and point it directly against street crime and drug interdiction was
|>    a) one of the proposals put forward by the national task force on crime 
|>       prevention and drug policy.

Toadies.

|>    b) part of the adminstrative order establishing the office of the drug czar.

One of the most dangerous things to occur in my lifetime.

|>    c) promoted by various congresspeople from both sides of the aisle. 

So?  Idiocy isn't limited to the Democrats, although they seem more willing to
display it in public.

ANYBODY who wants to run for elected office should be immediately suspected of
doing horrible things in dark, dank places to small children and cute, furry
animals.

That way, you won't be unpleasantly surprised when the real truth comes out, and
you'll have the pleasure of saying "I *told* you so!" to your less aware
associates.

|>    While I admittedly haven't seen Gov. Clinton's proposal for a NPF its 
|>    objectives, I am sure, are in keeping with the wishes of urban america vs.
|>    suburban gun freaks who simply don't want to share the cost of paying for
|>    to solve a problem they don't see as they're own.

Great, so the suburbs should pay to bail the cesspool cities out of the mess
they've made.

I'd bet you live in a cesspool city.  "University of Maryland, Baltimore County."

Yup, yup, yup, yup.

You know, if you exclude the cities over 100,000 population, the US has a murder
rate that compares favorably with any foreign country.

If you look at the 25 states which don't allow you to walk into a gun store and
walk out immediately with a (*everyone gasp*) handgun, you'll find that 4 out of
5 murders in this country happen in those states.

Gun Control?  How about City Control?  Let's ban all municipalities with more
than 100,000 people within the city limits!  No more "Assault Cities!"

|>    And, about this assault weapons debate.  Are you guys in favor of raising 
|>    the ban on private ownership of machine guns?  Yeah?  Ok, lets throw out
|>    restrictions on tank ownership....Stinger G/A missles and, yeah, private
|>    armies and airforces.  Lets allow everybody to buy whatever weapons they
|>    want...yeah...and lets elect the Libertarian party at the same time.
|>    geez,,,the thought is mindboggling...

Yes, freedom is a heady thing.  Unfortunately, your chances of experiencing it in
this country are on the decline, and have been since about 1915.

|>     Stay Easy,
|>      TheBigBopper

You know, the saddest thing about this is how easy it is to brainwash people via
the media.  Get a clue, BigBopper.  Turn off the TV, and read some Orwell - try
_Animal Farm_ and _1984_ for starters.

Ah, well, slavery's not so bad, for those who can't, or won't, think.

Enjoy your servitude. <insert "Happy Face" icon here>

-- 
Kirk Hays - NRA Life.
Start your day with a little civil disobedience.  Call BATF at 1-800-ATF-GUNS or
1-800-RUN-GUNS, tell them what you think of gun grabbers and government employees
that encourage people to narc on their neighbors.  Good for the soul.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns