cso.uiuc.edu> Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns,misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty From: cbur...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher J Burian) Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
]I just heard on the MacNeil-Lehrer NewsHOur that Rolling Stone will be ]publishing an interview with President Clinton in which Clinton ]hints that if the Brady Bill doesn't reduce crime that he would ]consider banning guns.
HINT? Every damn press release from that fascist 'hints' at gun prohibition. He made a visit to Seattle an occasion for attacking the Second Amendment. Everything is an occasion to bash the Constitution for Klinton.
Oh, and Glory Be! the Senate voted down the Brady Bill.
What's the Slickster going to do now? Declare a 'national emergency' and all firearms by Executive Order, including use of house-to-house searches?
-- =<Christopher Burian>======<Orwell was an optimist.>======<cbur...@uiuc.edu>= ====<PGP public key on the server, or finger cbur...@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu>==== =============<Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice.>=============== ---
cso.uiuc.edu> Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns,misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty From: cbur...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher J Burian) Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
]In article <feustelCGrJn0....@netcom.com> feus...@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes: ]>I just heard on the MacNeil-Lehrer NewsHOur that Rolling Stone will be ]>publishing an interview with President Clinton in which Clinton ]>hints that if the Brady Bill doesn't reduce crime that he would ]>consider banning guns.
]So when does he plan to dismiss Congress? The President can't pass laws ]by himself.
Under national emergency, the President can issue any Executive Order he likes, which becomes law without the consent of Congress. Congress may not even review his actions under E.O. for six months.
We've been under perpetual national emergencies since 1935.
-- =<Christopher Burian>======<Orwell was an optimist.>======<cbur...@uiuc.edu>= ====<PGP public key on the server, or finger cbur...@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu>==== =============<Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice.>=============== ---
ut.fi> Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns,misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty alt.current-events.usa From: j...@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
In article <2cnur7$...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, cburian@ux4 (Christopher J Burian) writes:
>Oh, and Glory Be! the Senate voted down the Brady Bill.
Huh? The TV news here just twenty minutes ago said that Senate accepted a bill to mandate five day waiting periods for background check. Wasn't this the bill known as the Brady Bill? The commentator said that the decision was changed on the last minute based on popular opinion poll results.
cso.uiuc.edu> Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns,misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty alt.current-events.usa From: cbur...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher J Burian) Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
]In article <2cnur7$...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, cburian@ux4 (Christopher J Burian) writes: ]>Oh, and Glory Be! the Senate voted down the Brady Bill.
]Huh? The TV news here just twenty minutes ago said that Senate ]accepted a bill to mandate five day waiting periods for background ]check. Wasn't this the bill known as the Brady Bill? The commentator ]said that the decision was changed on the last minute based on popular ]opinion poll results.
I didn't see it first hand. A friend of mine told me that the Senate had defeated the Brady Bill. ????? I'll check for myself.
-- =<Christopher Burian>======<Orwell was an optimist.>======<cbur...@uiuc.edu>= ====<PGP public key on the server, or finger cbur...@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu>==== =============<Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice.>=============== ---
ut.fi> Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns,misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty From: j...@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
In article <xstabluCGsx31....@netcom.com>, xstablu@netcom (Xfer Station Blue) writes:
>I was only listening with one ear, but I thought the comment that had been >attributed to him was that if the 'Brady Bill *worked*, he would consider >a ban. I felt a lot safer with that interpretation, as I think we all know >that the BB will have no effect on crime.
What could possible make anyone thing that "work" in this context means "will have an effect on crime"? The most probably meaning for "work" is "to gain more control to the government".
@netcom.com> Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns,misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty From: feus...@netcom.com (David Feustel) Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Device Drivers To Go
r...@athena.mit.edu (0000-Admin(0000)) writes: >In article <feustelCGrJn0....@netcom.com> feus...@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes: >>I just heard on the MacNeil-Lehrer NewsHOur that Rolling Stone will be >>publishing an interview with President Clinton in which Clinton >>hints that if the Brady Bill doesn't reduce crime that he would >>consider banning guns. >So when does he plan to dismiss Congress? The President can't pass laws >by himself.
Do you know what an Executive Order is? Executive Orders declarations by the President which have the force of law unless and until Congress overrules them.
National Security Directives are Secret Executive Orders that Congress doesn't know about, and thus can't overrule. You might try to find out just how many NSD's have been issued by the last 3 Presidents. -- Dave Feustel N9MYI <feus...@netcom.com>
I DON'T CARE about the deficit OR the national Debt; *I* don't have any kids. ---
< In article <feustelCGrJn0....@netcom.com> feus...@netcom.com (David
Feustel) writes:
< >I just heard on the MacNeil-Lehrer NewsHOur that Rolling Stone will be < >publishing an interview with President Clinton in which Clinton < >hints that if the Brady Bill doesn't reduce crime that he would < >consider banning guns.
< So when does he plan to dismiss Congress? The President can't pass laws < by himself.
President Clinton, decrying the "crazy" way guns have been permitted to proliferate in the United States, has declared he is prepared to challenge the powerful National Rifle Association lobby and introduce major new gun control measures.
The U.S. people "are way ahead of Congress" on the gun control issue, Clinton said in extraordinarily candid and at times heated remarks made in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine. Gun violence has created enough public concern to support a ban on certain kinds of guns and "a lot of other reasonable regulations".
White House aides said Thursday the President will introduce major new gun control measures early next year.
In article <7.15202.615.0N55D...@CS.HUT.FI> J...@CS.HUT.FI writes: >ut.fi> >Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns,misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty >From: j...@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) >Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
>In article <xstabluCGsx31....@netcom.com>, xstablu@netcom (Xfer Station Blue) >writes: >>I was only listening with one ear, but I thought the comment that had been >>attributed to him was that if the 'Brady Bill *worked*, he would consider >>a ban. I felt a lot safer with that interpretation, as I think we all know >>that the BB will have no effect on crime.
>What could possible make anyone thing that "work" in this context >means "will have an effect on crime"? The most probably meaning for >"work" is "to gain more control to the government".
>//Jyrki >---
I think that Clinton will evaluate the Brady bill as follows:
1. If it reduces crime [yeah, right] then more gun control is needed to further reduce crime.
2. If it fails to reduce crime, then more gun control is needed, as the Brady bill was not enough.
This of lack of thinking and desire for total government control that will lead to complete abrogation of the 2nd amendment.
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Curtis #include <std_disclaimer.h> Live long and powder =%^)
