From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 07:05:27 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa

In article <17hrl7INNijo@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <27AUG199200095943@chemvx.tamu.edu> lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu (Brett G. Lemoine) 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...
>
>>Give me a break. This senario is about as likely as you convincing me to
>>become a fundamentalist Christian. Personally, I'd say that George strikes
>>me as much closer to the dictator type.
>
>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!

-- 
Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk  "The Demos have to go!"   (408) 253 4541 fax

A government that is afraid of an armed populace is a government
the populace should be afraid of.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns