From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: National Crime Database
Keywords: database, RSA, Staggers, instant
Organization: Twilight Zone
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:25:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.020022.19622@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>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:

	[snip]
>> >
>> >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.

	Not necessarily so.  I think we are more hosed if we give in to the
	anti gunners.  It the old letting the foot in the door problem I
	have metnioned before.  Give a inch, they take a foot.  If one is to
	fight for this right then I believe it should be done right and I
	don't think that a national background checking system is the right
	way to go.  It will not prevent a criminal from getting a gun.  It
	will only make them have to go to a different source for them.  Besides
	I also think that the whole idea of the FFL should be dumped.  It, like
	this cime database idea is open to too much abuse and apparently has
	been abused in places from what I have heard here in this group.
>
>> 	You'd never get legislators 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.

	We'd be doing this for a thousand lifetimes before anything got done.
	There must be a better way than the vote.  Any suggestions anyone??
>
>> 	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.

	Sounds worth a try.  How to proceed?
>
>> 	The Guv has endless energy to prosecute their political agendas, 
>
>You mean persecute, right? ;-)  (prosecute implies a legal right...)

	No.  One of the meanings of prosecute is "to pursue".
>
>> 	It's just like a starfish working on a clam.  Soft, slow, inexorable.
>
>Just like now.  Should we throw our hands in the air and surrender?

	Not at all, but let us recognize clearly what it is we are to
	make claim to and then use EFFECTIVE means to secure said claim.
	If I want to knock out a tank, I might use an RPG.  I COULD stand
	on the turret and piss on it in hopes of getting what I want but I
	think you;d acree that success would probably not be forthcoming in
	a timely fashion, not to mention the fact that I open myself up to
	counter attack.  If you fight, you do so HARD, with clear and
	uncompromizing purpose and you show NO mercy.  You tramp the enemy
	into the dust till they till they can no longer be differentiated
	from same.

	If we are not willing to go whole hog then there is no point in even
	considering it any further.
>
>
>You're right.  I prefer high quality firearms over "lousy guns"  ;-)

	You said it!
>
>> 	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).

	Yes.  Chalk much of this up to the proverbial Monday Night Futbal
	coma so many of us seem to live for (myself NOT included) along with
	the manifold other similar diversions that occupy the minds of a
	great many Americans these days.  The soft life has given us soft
	heads and taken our guts away.  Brave New World is here folks.
>
>> 	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).

	Would be nice, but again I claim the Guv will NEVER voluntarily
	submit to that kind of control.  It must be FORCED on them, though
	by what means I cannot say.
>
>>They should be able to screw the shit out 
>> 	of any Guv official that gets in the way of the discharge of legal
>> 	obligation.  
>> 
>>	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.

	Another nice idea that I would love to see come to fruition, but again
	I ask HOW do you get this to happen?  Even large and powerful groups
	have great difficulty making movements like this.
>
>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..."

	Is there a mechanism to do this that the ordinary citizen can
	take advantage of?  I know of no such legal device.
>
>> 	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).

	Illuminatus!  Holy shit, I have been listening to the Guv's BULLSHIT
	so long that somewhere I guess I kind of forgot this.  Hmmm....

>> 	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.

	Well in principle i agree with you, but let us take a wee little
	reality check here.  Do you think that the Guv really gives a flying
	FUCK about the constitution?  I think they do, but only to the
	extent that they can use it as a means to their ends (whatever those 
	might be).  They abide when it is either to their convenience or in 
	cases where to do otherwise would be too risky in terms of the public
	eye, though even this seems to be changing quite noticeably.  And I
	think many of these assinine "COPS" type shows are helping this sad
	decline right along.

	Let's face it, MOST and I mean the VAST majority of the present day
	Guv's power derives DIRECTLY from the firepower at its disposal.  If
	we as a nation of patriots rose up against the Guv, they would not
	hesitate for one moment to use all that is at their disposal against
	the rest of us, and I believe that includes the nukes.  If you were
	some rotten Guv prick, and were looking at certain summary execution 
	as a criminal by an angry group of citizens and you had the power to 
	take perhaps several millions of persons down the shitter with you,
	might you not do so with whatever was at your disposal?

>
	[snip again]
	
>> 	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.

	Sorry Charles, but I think this is a little naive.  Over the course of
	your life, how many programs/laws/whatevers have you seen remain what
	they were meant to be?  It takes ACTIVE participation by a LARGE 
	percentage of the citizens to keep government in the hands of 
	"the people" where it belongs.  Americans just don't give a shit in
	large enough numbers to do this successfully.  You can thank the NFL,
	the NBA etc and so forth for being such an aid to us in this respect.

>
>> 	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.

	Yeah, well time's come to get pissingor otherwise say forget it.
>
>>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?

	I think it could be done with enough support, but I don't think the
	active support is there, nor do I think it will be there any time soon.

>> 	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?)
>
	I do believe the legal sense of the word is different and certainly
	more specific than this.  If denial of 2nd amend. rights would require
	a very tedious and COSTLY and LENGTHY process for the Guv, then I MIGHT
	be agreeable to such a thing.  While I do not want every schizo that
	hears the voice of JAAAAAYYYYZUS telling him to go out and kill the
	profane with a .38, I am more fearful of the prospect of the Guv
	delcaring persons to be insane in a capricious and cavalier manner
	with no accountablility, much as they do today.

>> 	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?
>

	Could be.  More so is the potential to tramsform a voluntary system 
	into a mandatory system, which is likely to be the case, given the
	abominably poor track record the Guv has in this regard.

>> 	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.

	Calm and rational does not necessarily mean yielding.  Don't have 
	to be a raving lunatic, and being extremely firm in your position
	does not make you one.	

>> 	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".

	Ah, I see I have mis-construed your position.  I agree about taking
	small bites, but i thought these were your long term goals.  Pardon
	my extreme stupidity.  My ULTIMATE goal would be to see nationwide
	free carry etc. and so on.  Getting there with small steps is not
	unagreeable, especially in light of todays poitical realities.  
>
>> >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...

	OK, I concede this may be so.  Perhaps I was in need of prunes when
	I said this.
>
>> 	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?

	Sure, but I don't want to engage in futile attempts either.  In that
	case I'd probably rather go fishing.
>
>>	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...

	Perhaps so... lemme find that Box O' Prunes...

	-Andy
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:19634 talk.politics.animals:7281