From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: Clinton Shows His True Colors
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:19:57 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.042523.12801@convex.com> Mike Tighe <tighe@convex.COM> writes:

>From Dallas Morning News, 24-Jul-92 page 10A:

>       Flanked by Houston police officers, the Democrat said: "I want to
>       start ... in the state of Texas by endorsing the Brady Bill,
>       something even Ronald Reagan supports to make our streets safer."

     Isn't this the same President they're calling "the worst thing
ever to happen to this country" and "senile?"

>       "We ought to be for the Brady Bill and we ought to take AK-47s and
>       the Uzis off the streets of America."

     *Despite* the fact that even BATF admits these weapons are not crime
problems, and never have been.

>       Mr. Clinton said a president should be willing to "risk a little
>       political heat (to) ask people to wait five or six days to check
>       their criminal records or their mental health history."

     I still feel government should be justifying itself to *me*, not the
other way around.

>       Addressing about 2000 Texans during a light rain at City Hall, Mr.
>       Clinton stressed he was not for gun control.

     Just "reasonable" restrictions on law-abiding citizens rights.

>       "I come from your neighboring state where over half the people have
>       hunting and fishing licenses," he said.

     That's right.  The hunters are going to be the last to go.

>       "I support the right to keep and bear arms. I support the right of
>       men and women to be sports people, but I think most law-abiding
>       Americans would like to think that we're helping police."

     I'm becoming less and less enchanted with helping police.  I've heard
too many gripe that my rights get in the way of their enforcing the law.
Those protections, *all of the them* are there to *protect* us from the
government, and the police.  They were written specifically with the 
idea that the police are *not* our friends.
 
     Remember, the goal of the police and your goals may not be the same.

>What I find most outrageous about this is not his stand (expected), nor his
>[intentional?] ignorance about the fact that the Brady Bill does not
>require a background check (expected), but the fact he is playing both
>sides of the issue, like a typical, scum-of-the-Earth politician (expected,
>but not so blatantly).

     I'm sure he does know, just like he knows that studies, reports, 
criminologists, and even the government have *all* said that the AK-47's
and UZI's are not crime problems, yet those are the ones that are brought
up in his rhetoric.
 
     Truth and politics rarely mix.

>Clinton is for a waiting period, and he wants to completely ban several

>One final note. His [intentional?] ignorance about the Brady Bill not
>requiring background checks just proves that the BIG LIE techniques of
>Sarah and HCI, really do fool the masses.

     You want a big lie.  Go pick up a couple of high school history
and civics texts and read up what they're teaching kids about "limited 
government"these days.  Makes my skin crawl.


===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns