Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns From: [h--u--e] at [NETSYS.COM] (Hudson Luce) Subject: Weapons Caching, Revised. Part 6/7 Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1993 06:24:35 GMT From: [p--t] at [rwing.UUCP] (Pat Myrto) Date: 14 Dec 93 07:02:36 GMT A "responsible hunter", who happens to work for the Government, writes: >>I think that when responsible gun owners look around, >>you will see that there is no need for "cop-killer" bullets, >>high-calibre handguns, or semi-automatic and automatic >>weapons. None of us uses a MAC-10 to kill a rabbit. Or >>even a deer for that matter. The reply: Does any of that "us" include the government? If not, why not? Are they exempt? If so why? Are they somehow our 'betters'? Seems they have no need for 'cop-killer' bullets, high-calibre handguns, or semi-automatic and automatic weapons. Why do they have a 'need' and we don't? And please point out the place in the Constitution that makes the Right to Keep and Bear Arms subject to government-defined 'need'. We are waiting... The government doesn't use THEIR guns to kill rabbits, either. They use them to kill PEOPLE. American Citizens (or is 'subjects' a better term?) Too often, without provocation. Usually people they are annoyed at, in Weaver's case for allegedly failing to pay a $200 tax, and refusing to be intimidated to be a snitch for the BATF. They seem to take rejection badly. A violation that was initiated by BATF, with their pressuring the subject to do the violation (source: testimony in open court, under oath). Kill without benefit of a trial. The snipers at Ruby Creek, in open court, ADMITTED they WANTED to kill Weaver. They had orders to shoot anybody who held a firearm. WHETHER THEY WERE A THREAT TO ANYBODY OR NOT. Rather strange orders, no? They are usually told to shoot only if innocent life is in danger. Not to just kill someone. Sounds like the objective of the exercise was to make SURE that Weaver never lived to see trial, perhaps to avoid embarrassment? They were so eager to waste him, they blew what should have been easy shots for them, considering their training and equipment. Rather nice it failed (but they seem to escape accountability for killing an unarmed woman holding an 'assault' child, a 14 year old boy, and wounding Weaver. His weapons? Nothing spectacular. Rather ordinary for people in that neck of the woods. The FBI admitted they doctored evidence. The prosecutor withheld evidence from the defense. HAd to apologize for misconduct at the trial, it was so blatant. The judge accused them of murder, at the end of the trial, after the acquittal of Weaver. And bemoaned the fact they were not in court. What has been done about it? NOTHING. No trial before the people. Instead - IMMUNITY from being held accountable. These are the people you wish to have a MONOPOLY on coercive force. Doesn't sound like a good candidate to me. Would you give a gun to anybody else with that sort of track record? Please tell us how victim disarmament laws will reduce crime. Please produce some supporting evidence one can verify. Examples of their efficacy in the past will be fine. We can wait till hell freezes over for a meaningful answer. Note on the NYC subway, the victims were unable to do anything but cower and die until the killer ran out of bullets. Gun laws REALLY helped them, didn't they? And the state did such a great job of protecting them, too - especially since they were FORCED to be totally dependent on them... How come you never hear of this at rifle ranges? Or places where someone in the crowd is likely to be armed? Please explain all this to us. We are waiting. And waiting. And waiting. BTW - you complain about lack of respect for Clinton. This is not a monarchy. The president, in a free society, has to EARN respect from the people. It is not simply ordered, like it would be in a dictatorship or monarchy. The people do not serve at the pleasure of the government - its the government at the pleasure of the PEOPLE. Perhaps because you are in the employ of government, you feel you are 'special', and will be unaffected by rules forced on the rest of us, that the rest of us are somehow inferior. Just remember, you will not be 'special' all your life. When you employment ends, or you retire, so will your 'special' status. You will become a peon like the rest of us. I would make sure it is not something out of Orwell's 1984 when you lose your Inner Party status. Don't forget that. If you do, you might rue the day that you do. ================================================================= From: [j g d] at [dixie.com] (John De Armond) Newsgroups: info.firearms.politics Subject: 2nd civil war Date: 13 Dec 93 18:48:27 GMT Another reader writes: >Our government is declaring war on the populace. More and >more this country resembles 1930s Germany. The efficiency >of the propaganda (or should I say spin control) produced by >ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, >Time-Warner, etc would have astounded Josef Goebbels. It is striking, isn't it? I saw one of our regulars out in talk.politics.guns suggest that perhaps Clinton is mentally incompetent because of his gun control stand. That is a breathtakingly misguided evaluation of the enemy. And making that mistake about the enemy is the sure path to defeat. Step back a moment and take a clinical view of the current Washington environment. Clinton is a masterful politician and a natural leader. This is not a compliment - Hitler fit the same profile. Just his escaping the Jennifer Flowers issue demonstrates his political skills. Most any other time in recent history, when a politician was caught sticking his pee-pee in strange holes, his career was over. A recent analysis I read observed that Clinton's handling of the issue made him STRONGER. Or look how he pushed through the nation's largest tax increase. He did it in a manner that will have most people forgetting that what he did WAS a tax increase. Or look at NAFTA. He took a dead-in-the-water relic left over from the Bush administration and made it law and politically buried Perot at the same time. Anyone still remember anything about the travel office corruption? That was as bad as Nixon's Watergate but no one even lost their jobs this time around. Or consider how smoothly he got away with killing all those people at Waco. I submit that Clinton is one of the most dangerous politicians ever to hold high office and to contemplate fighting him without the proper respect for his capabilities is to invite sudden defeat. This Administration is conducting a well-planned campaign to strip Americans of the means of resisting the Government. It is being conducted with the aid (unwitting or otherwise) of Congress, both parties and the bureaucracy. Remember, the friend of any totalitarian government is "order". Tack on "Law and" and you have the theme of the present campaign. One can get an insight into this by observing the Administration's reaction to that idiot surgeon general's quite reasonable proposal to take a look at legalizing drugs as a solution to drug-related violent crime. (The tragedy is this good proposal now carries the baggage of being proposed by this idiot.) The Administration revealed its true agenda, in jerking at the speed of light to squash this proposal. Crime reduction isn't his goal. Using crime as the pretense for disarmament IS. The coup has begun and is being conducted so smoothly that people don't realize it, even many people on our side. John From: [j g d] at [dixie.com] (John De Armond) Subject: Re: What would you have done? Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 12:24:31 EST > Do you mind if I use the contents of your email to me > in the next edition of the Weapons Caching manual? OK > Should we see police cars as rolling weapons caches? Absolutely. And police station weapons rooms and national guard armories. Remember, a bunch of both those populations will be on our side when the war starts. John ======================================================================= From: [p--t] at [rwing.UUCP] (Pat Myrto) Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.guns Date: 14 Dec 93 06:24:08 GMT In reply to the "responsible hunter" who works for the Feds: Lessee. You work for the government. Interesting. You say you have a rifle - I will assume it is a 'nice' gun, a bolt action Remington. Are you willing to bet your life that next on the agenda won't be 'Sniper rifles'? The actions in NJ, NY, Chicago, Cleveland, Wash DC, and in CA, plus unnamed others suggests that good faith "we aren't going to confiscate" words from government are flat out-and-out lies. The Brady Bunch has stated on numerous occasions that their agenda is to make the possession of firearms - except for military and police, and "licensed security guards" (read: protection for 'special' folk, such as themselves) totally illegal. They have stated they have a step-by-step agenda. The NRA was rated as second only to the American Library Assciation as a source of reliable and accurate information by an agency (I forget which, someone will provide the answer, I am sure) which needs to get statistical information (had to do with Congress, I believe). On the other hand HCI wasn't even mentioned in that regard... You have accused the NRA of telling lies. Please be specific so someone can respond to them. Surely you have a list of 'lies' handy if you know they are telling lies... or are you saying this because Brady or the media said they were lying, so it must be so? You have read the FBI memo that was leaked, haven't you? The one that plans the media blitz we are now seeing, and their desire to ban possession of all firearms? And of course, HCI and the Brady Bunch are people who ALWAYS tell the complete truth... would NEVER dream of misleading us, or you... You use your rifle for hunting, I notice. I would follow the Administration's agenda regarding hunting rather closely, if I were you. Not their words. But their ACTIONS and record. Seriously. HCI and the animal rights people - the ones who stand in front of you, have been known to slash tires, and otherwise disrupt hunts, and those who push for removing public lands from availability for hunters - have joined forces with Brady, since they BOTH don't like guns. Any guns, except in the hands of the government. After all, the Second Amendment is so out of date, and irrelevant anymore... And if it takes a scope and is good for long range shots, it would be a 'sniper rifle' if ever there was one. You also cite the Constitution as protecting you. Seeing as the government has shown rather blatant disregard for the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments (and the First is in extreme danger right now) I would not bet on them abiding by the Constitution, to protect you. You really ought to examine that Clinton 'crime bill' that is up for passage. It is a shock. The track record of the government ignoring the Constitution whenever it is deemed expedient is rather extensive. I leave it as an exercise to read the Bill of Rights for yourself. Consider, for example, that you can have your property taken without even being ACCUSED of a crime. And that 80 percent of the victims of civil forfeitures are people who are never even CHARGED with anything, let alone convicted. A Philadelphia paper (the Philadelphia Enquirer - not confused with the National Enquirer) did an extensive piece on these abuses. Clinton wants to EXPAND the scope of these laws, not limit them. You donUt always get to face your accusers, either. The prosecutor is deemed to be your accuser in too many cases. And if they go after you civilly, NONE of the protections in the Bill of Rights are applicable to your case. That is how they pull off Civil Forfeiture. The government does not feel you have a right unless it is spelled out in the Constitution, and interpreted in the narrowest possible way, opposite from the original idea that the Constitution grants NO rights, it protects PRE-EXISTING rights. THe government feels it is OK to re-interpret the definitions of words in the Constitution multiple times, depending on what part is being read at the time, and their mood. You might also consider reading the quote from Rev Niemoller. If none of these concern you, there is nothing I or anyone else can say to influence your views. But what will you say when you find out the laws DO impact that 'hunting rifle', and nobody is left to back you up, because they all felt "It's OK since they aren't after MY gun... but someone ELSE's..." What will you do about it THEN? Besides cry? I'd think about it REAL HARD, if you wish to keep your Right to Keep and Bear Arms.