From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: RE: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 01:39:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.161453.4636@SSD.intel.com>, hays@ssd.intel.com
(Kirk Hays) writes:

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

Our govt was *intended* to be slow, and deliberate, rather than "efficient".
I suspect the Founding Fathers knew that the only thing Congress would
be efficient at, was passing laws.

> |>    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.

So the urbanites should be able to request that Herr Clinton send his
National Police Force into the suburbs, and extract money to fix the
urban cesspools?

Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant here... ;-)

> 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!"

That would be Detroit you're referring to, I assume...  Or perhaps Gary, IN
(if that smell doesn't count as an "assault", I don't know what does ;-).

> |>    And, about this assault weapons debate.  Are you guys in favor of raising 
> |>    the ban on private ownership of machine guns?

A trivial solution here, guys.  We pile weapons on a table, and
if Herr Clinton can *personally*, *CORRECTLY* identify all the
assault weapons, we let him ban them...  ;-)

You see, BigBopper, I'm betting that Bill Clinton doesn't even know
what an assault weapon is.  But you can bet he wants to ban them.
(hint:  it's not a semi-automatic).

Likewise, I'm betting that you don't know what restrictions already
exist on full-autos, nor how often these *legally purchased* full-autos
are used in crimes.

New laws will not affect illegal obtained weapons, as there are already
laws making it illegal to obtain these weapons without a license (which
is passed through the FBI's hands in the process for a background check).

> |>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

Funny thing, here.  Law-abiding Citizens (by definition) do not commit
crimes.  And likewise, criminals (by definition) don't follow the laws.
So, in one group you need not fear ownership, and the other group you will
not prevent ownership.

> |>    want...yeah...and lets elect the Libertarian party at the same time.
> |>    geez,,,the thought is mindboggling...

Heaven forbid electing officials that believe in freedom!

> 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.

Maybe 1865?...

-- 
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