From: williamf@umbc1.umbc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: RE: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover
Date: 27 Aug 92 11:53:07 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore County

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 was
   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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns