From: MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: RE: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:02:30 GMT
 <17hrl7INNijo@agate.berkeley.edu> <xccng8+.crisp@netcom.com>
 <27AUG92.11530738@umbc1.umbc.edu>
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <27AUG92.11530738@umbc1.umbc.edu>, williamf@umbc1.umbc.edu says:
>
>In a previous article, crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) wrote:
>>In article <17hrl7INNijo@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank
>  Crary) writes:
>>>>In article <l_cnb3#.crisp@netcom.com>, crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
>   spouts.
>>>>}the "assault weapons with no legitimate hunting purpose" combined
>>>>}with his plan to put 100,000 new police officers on the street as
>>>>}part of a "National Police Force" intended to be used to rub out things
>>>>}he personally finds objectionable is the most dangerous combination...
>>>
>>>It really doesn't matter if Clinton would do anything objectionable with a
>>>"National Police Force." If elected, he would establish one (loyal and
>>>responsible to whom? He hasn't said. We would certainly have less control
>>>over it, than the residents of Los Angelos have over the LAPD.) Clinton
>>>also is very much in favor of disarming the law-abiding citiznes of this
>>>country. This _could_ (fairly easily) be used by a power-hunger President,
>>>and these changes would remain in effect long after Clinton left office.
>>>
>>>What will happen the next time a Richard Nixon is elected? Do you
>>>really want to see the what such a President could do with a 100,000 man
>>>armed force, loyal to him and charged with maintianing "order"? That
>>>wouldn't be too different from the old German SS.
>>>
>>Yes and that's exactly the point. I really don't believe that Clinton
>>will establish himself as "President for Life" (but he might if elected).
>>What the real concern is that a VERY dangerous situation would be created
>>if he were to get his way on the two issues raised: namely the disarming
>>of the American people and the establishment of the National Police Corps.
>>These two things create an important tool for a tyrant to use to dominate
>>and subjugate our people at sometime int he future.
>>
>>Look at it this way: suppose we do what is proposed, what guarantee do we
>>have that one or two generations down the road, when all of us that had
>>experienced private ownership of weapons are all dead, that some good
>>won't attempt to do just what I suggested? How would such a scenario be
>>addressed effectively by an unarmed populace? This is a very important issue,
>>one that seems to have been forgotten by the majority of the people over
>>the last 200+ years. I'd bet the founding fathers like Madison, Jefferson and
>>the like would rool over in their graves to hear this nonsense coming
>>out of the DumbOCratic party! This is a very serious issue and needs
>>to be understood by all now lest we give away our future liberty!
>>
>   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.  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?  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.  Establishing a new agency by peeling off pieces of these
>   agencies and point it directly against street crime and drug interdiction  s
>wa
>   a) one of the proposals put forward by the national task force on crime
>      prevention and drug policy.
>   b) part of the adminstrative order establishing the office of the drug
>czar.
>   c) promoted by various congresspeople from both sides of the aisle.
>   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.
>   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...
>    Stay Easy,
>     TheBigBopper
Have you been watching too many "MachoMan" "wrestling" videos, or is your
"thinking' always so inane and disjointed.  You really don't have the slightest
clue, do you...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc