From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: National Crime Database
Keywords: database, RSA, Staggers, instant
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 02:00:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.165750.17920@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com
(Mr. X) writes:

> In article <1992Aug8.005743.1041@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
> writes:
> >In article <1992Aug7.202617.12968@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com
> >(Mr. X) writes:
> >
> >> are so many potential holes in this that would open it WIDE for massive
> >> abuse.
> >
> >That's why we're discussing it here.  Figure out how to plug those holes.
> 
> 	I realize that and what I am saying is that it can't be done.

Then we are eternally hosed.  They will continue to jam us with that
salami legislation.

> 	You'd never get legisaltors to pass what would would be needed
> 	in order to make such a system safe for the common citizen.  Hell,

Then we vote them out until we get someone who can or will.

> 	I doubt that there's anyone on Capitol Hill that even has the ability
> 	to properly write such a piece of legislation, which would be no
> 	small feat, mind you.  The would-be abusers of the new legislation are
> 	out there and VERY crafty, just like any other criminal and will most
> 	likely find effective loopholes and use them to put the screws to us.

Perhaps some of the legal-eagles from the NRA could lend a hand.

> 	The Guv has endless energy to prosecute their political agendas, 

You mean persecute, right? ;-)  (prosecute implies a legal right...)

> 	regardless of which one it may be.  How many times will their
> 	attempts at salami legislation result in a sufficiently strong
> 	outpouring of political action from RKBA supporters before those
> 	supporters begin to wear thin on their resolve?  How many years
> 	would they really be able to keep the system intact before the
> 	assaults from the Guv began to wear their energies down to where
> 	they would begin seeing success in their campaign to disarm the
> 	common citizen?  It's just like a starfish working on a clam.  Soft,
> 	slow, but inexorable.

Just like now.  Should we throw our hands in the air and surrender?

> 	After all, there's a HELL of a lot more to life than lousy guns and

You're right.  I prefer high quality firearms over "lousy guns"  ;-)

> 	people know it and feel it and want to live it.  They don't want to
> 	spend their lives fighting to prevent the Guv from taking their arms
> 	away.  They get tired of the constant need to deal with the problem
> 	that drags on year after year never really allowing thoughts of it to
> 	lapse completely from the forefront of their concern.  Can we say
> 	"low intensity warfare"?  It takes its toll over time and people just
> 	say "fuck it".  This is the way people are built, like it or not.

Exactly as is happening now (or has happened).

> 	In principle I agree that this is a good idea, but again there is 
> 	nothing to prevent the Guv from simply refusing to comply with the
> 	law.  Happens all the time.  How will you stop this?  The only way
> 	I can think of is to have boards of "common" citizens that act as
> 	watchdog with full force of law, i.e. they prefer charges when and
> 	if the Guv fails to do so.

Not only that, but also against those officials who should have preferred
charges, but refused to.  (either they're incompetant, and should be
impeached and withdrawn from office, or they are an accessory to the
crime, and should be jailed).

>They should be able to screw the shit out 
> 	of any Guv official that gets in the way of the discharge of legal
> 	obligation.  I also believe that this will NEVER happen.  The Guv would
> 	NEVER give up that much power.  I mean, individual responsibility?!
> 	No such animal exists in the US Guv anymore.
> 
>	Even so, if the courts are not sympathetic, charges are meaningless,

Courts?  Perhaps a Grand Jury should review the cases.  Impeach any Justice
who refuses to hear a case reviewed and forwarded by the Grand Jury.

Thomas Jefferson:  "...judges should be withdrawn from the bench whose
erroneous biases are leading us to dissolution.  It may, indeed, injure
them in fame or fortune; but it saves the Republic..."

> 	unless you suggest that this not be a trial type affair, but rather
> 	a "we;re fining you..." thing, the idea of which gives me the willies.

Fortunately for us, the _government_ has *NO* protections under the
Constitution.  It is not a citizen, or even a person.  It's power
and existence, derive from the Constitution.  The _government_ need
not be given "due process" (thus department within said government
do not have these protections, either.  Only the _individual_
personnel are guaranteed those protections).

> 	You're asking the Guv to effectively bend over and screw themselves.
> 	I don't think this will happen, thought I'd surely pay good money
> 	to see it come to pass!

Nope, the govt's power derives from the Constitution, and thus "from the
people", so we are perfectly justified if *we* decide to bend them over.

> >> something it was never meant to be.  Salami legislation WILL be applied and
> >> one day we will all wake and ask ourselves "What the FUCK happened?"
> >
> >That salami legislation is already being applied.
> 
> 	Precisely.  And to appease the antigun usurpers to any degree at all

Appease?  Not a chance.  I think this would effectively scuttle their
agenda.  This today, strip another law off the books tomorrow...  Maybe
we'll once again be a free country.

> 	Again, you are timid to a fault.

Hahahahahaha!!!  No offense...  I've been accused of being a lot of things,
but this is a first.  ;-)

Actually, I *do* bend over backwards to try to get along with people...
until they try to bend me over forwards...  Then I rip out their eye and
piss on their brain.

>Why CCW?  FREE carry nationwide, 

We _don't_ have either of these now.  Do you prefer our current system?
I cetainly prefer FREE carry.  Do you think you can push it through?

> 	anywhere, any time by anyone not under criminal debt (fugitives and 
> 	parolees).  I hesitate to include the "insane" because this is simply
> 	far too easy to abuse.

Not really.  Declaring someone "insane" requires due process.  Unless they
try to declare all citizens insane... (but wait... isn't insanity considered
to be a deviation from the norm?)

> 	NO REGISTRATION at all.  Do not even let a toe into this door.  Before
> 	you know it you'd have forced registration. NO NO NO NO NO!

Ummm...  Have you ever purchased a pistol?  At least in the Fascist
State of Michigan, you need a "permit to purchase", and you _must_ register
it within a week of purchase (I think 1 week...).  Is this the sort of
forced registration you were worried would result from voluntary registration?

I said _voluntary_ registration.  If someone really wishes to register their
pistol (perhaps "in case of theft"...), they are quite welcome.  _You_ would
not be required (it's called _freedom_ when you have a choice, y'know).

> 	I believe you are sincere in this, but your attitude gives away 
> 	strong hints of an attitude of appeasement that perhaps you are
> 	not even aware of (see preceding paragraphs on CCW &c.).  With

On the other hand, if you establish yourself as a hard-ass, you
will find it harder to gain constituents.  Regardless of your deep
down personal feelings, you need to be calm and rational.

> 	Again you fall into the trap.  **EX**-felons SHOULD be able to
> 	purchase guns.  Felons (those in jail, on the lamb, or on parole)
> 	should NOT.  As I have said so many time before, if they are too 

I agree, but as it currently stands, EX-FELONS *are* disallowed from
ownership, also.  If you ask for too drastic a change, you will not
succeed.  The enemy has spent decades whittling away at our rights,
so unless you plan a violent coup, don't expect to recover them
overnight.  Take a little ground today, and a little more tomorrow...
Learn from your enemy.  Remember this quote "A wise man can learn
from a fool, but a fool can learn from no one".

> >We wish to keep legal firearms out of the hands of the bad guys, and
> >they don't want us to!".  (who said we have to be nice about it?... ;-)
> 
> 	That'll never fly.

A bit of a defeatist, aren't you?  Learn from your enemy...

> 	Perhaps, but I haven;t heard the right talk from too many people.
> 	The whole idea of compromise is bogus.  One does not compromise
> 	on their rights.  To do so is a defacto admission that you have

Our rights are already compromised.  I wish to regain ground.  How
about you?

>	You will when the SS come to your house and introduces your anus
> 	to a 12 ga. shotgun barrel.  And you'll smile when they say to do so.
> 	How's about we not let it get this far?

Good plan.  Start by gaining, and ensuring the support of "The people".
This needs to become a popular stance.  If you can make this the
new "Politically Correct" stance, you can go far...

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns