Feinstein Lets the Truth Slip Out
Broward Horne
In a previous article, tom...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Gift) says:
>Sec'y. Bentsen said that AW's were the "guns of choice of criminals by
>a vote of 8 to 1". What was he talking about? He went on to say that
>they are involved in crime 8x as much as other guns, despite only con-
>stituting about one percent of the firearms stock in the country. I'm
>used to seeing statistics distorted, but a fabrication of this magni-
>tude is way beyond just a distortion.
Disinformation. I just can't believe it. Clinton and
his pals have taken to it like a duck to water. Recently,
during a Nightline presentation about Whitewater, James
Carville was clearly using the same tactics. Make "mis-
statments" on the air, and it reaches 30 million people.
The later correction only reaches 2 or 3 million that
happen to be looking for it.
It's pretty clearly a conscious strategy.
I've got a call in to my representative about the so-called
"Hong Kong police" section of the Crime Bill. I'm waiting
to have it verified. If true, it can only mean one thing.
I sure can't see any other reason to bring foreign
mercenaries into this country under the guise of a
"national police force".
I really feel ill.
--
" Bill Clinton is not a criminal "
- Lynn Wallace
Tom Gift
My apologies if someone else has posted this already.
On Sunday's "Meet the Press" show, Diane Feinstein said
that 34 people had been killed with the 19 named weapons that
her bill would ban since it was introduced last year. NBC
last night said that it was introduced last October.
That means that, if the last six or seven months are typical,
about 68 people (or so) are killed with these guns per year.
The US has about 18,000 murders per year, which means the killer
assault weapons are responsible for roughly .38% of the homicides
in the US. That doesn't strike me as a situation calling for a
Chicken Little response.
She also said that she wasn't going for more gun control beyond
banning the AW's. Here, I strongly suspect that she was *not* being
truthful, and am disappointed that no one (including Wayne LaPierre)
noted that she tried to ban handguns when she was mayor of San Fran-
cisco. She said she had no position on the Bradley/Schumer bill that
calls for licensing handgun owners, arsenal permits, etc.
Sec'y. Bentsen said that AW's were the "guns of choice of criminals by
a vote of 8 to 1". What was he talking about? He went on to say that
they are involved in crime 8x as much as other guns, despite only con-
stituting about one percent of the firearms stock in the country. I'm
used to seeing statistics distorted, but a fabrication of this magni-
tude is way beyond just a distortion.
Bentsen waved around a Street Sweeper and talked about the need to ban
it. I was also disappointed that no one mentioned he had de facto already
done so by his reclassification this year.
Tom Gift
tom...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Victor L. Johnson
: On Sunday's "Meet the Press" show, Diane Feinstein said ...
<deletia>
Diane also started saying "Where the NRA is right ..." and immediately
stopped in mid sentence whilst mentally recoiling in horror when she
realized that she had just committed the political equivalent of stepping
on a warm turd.
She stammerd and groped for a few seconds trying to find the right
words to scrape it off and continue only to give up and change the whole
thrust of her sentence. :-/
All this in response to Wayne LaPierre's assertion that there are already
numerous laws on the books that, if vigorously enforced tommorrow, would
make a bigger dent in crime than any gun ban.
Gad, she can't even *say* it ... despite really knowing inside that the
NRA *is* right. Don'cha just love those Freudian slips?
Cheers,
Victor "Dances with Muzzle Blast" Johnson
-----------------------------------------
David Feustel
one exception: they're Americans not Russians.
--
Dave Feustel N9MYI Internet:<feu...@netcom.com> Compuserve:<73532,1747>
"I'm behind the Constitution and the Bill of Rights 1000 percent!"
--- When he says this, a sure sign that Bill Clinton is about to
declare martial law.
Ron Schwarz
In a previous article, an...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) says:
> I've got a call in to my representative about the so-called
> "Hong Kong police" section of the Crime Bill. I'm waiting
> to have it verified. If true, it can only mean one thing.
It's true, it's in there, and Krime Bill Klinton even bragged
about it on the record in one of his sturm und drung "speeches".
The sickening thing is how they are just lying and manipulating.
Yesterday, I had the misforture to hear part of the Larry (nature's
answer to Syrup of Ipecac) King show. He had some whitehouse
goon on (I forget which goon) and a caller mentioned the Hong
Kong police. The both of them spent minutes insulting, ridiculing,
and mocking the guy. And, of course, denying that it was there.
There are only two possibilities. One, they lied. This is most
likely, inasmuch as they are a pack of liars. Two, they are
*ignorant* shills of the fuhrer, and are blissfully unaware
of just what is *in* the snake oil they peddle.
Broward Horne
In a previous article, rsch...@edcen.ehhs.cmich.edu (Ron Schwarz) says:
>
>In a previous article, an...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) says:
>
>> I've got a call in to my representative about the so-called
>> "Hong Kong police" section of the Crime Bill. I'm waiting
>> to have it verified. If true, it can only mean one thing.
>
>It's true, it's in there, and Krime Bill Klinton even bragged
>about it on the record in one of his sturm und drung "speeches".
Yes, it's true. My representatives conformed it. They knew
EXACTLY what I was talking about, they've received several
calls.
So. The Crime Bill brings foreign mercenaries into the
United States of America. To practice "law enforcement".
This is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
I can't even THINK of a historical period in the United
States that matches this except the Revolutionary War.
Can anyone?
--
Why choose between being Red Two Terms for Clinton!
or being Dead? One in office...
With ClintonCare, you can be both! One in jail.
Richard Crisp
of bee stings. I do not recall the exact count of people killed with assault
weapons (perhaps someone on this group does?), but I seem to remember it was
something like 400.
So maybe Dianne Fineslime and the rest of the Banners on the hill should
go after bees next?
Maybe Paul McCartney had it right back in '68 when he wrote a song
called the "Fool on the Hill". WIth a slight change to the "Fools on the
Hill" it fits the US Congress to a tee.
--
Richard Crisp Cupertino, Ca. cr...@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk (408) 253 4541 fax
"It is a good thing that we do not get as much government as we pay for"
-Will Rogers
Dave Bakken
Broward Horne <an...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
>
>In a previous article, rsch...@edcen.ehhs.cmich.edu (Ron Schwarz) says:
>
>>
>>
>>> I've got a call in to my representative about the so-called
>>> "Hong Kong police" section of the Crime Bill. I'm waiting
>>> to have it verified. If true, it can only mean one thing.
>>
>>It's true, it's in there, and Krime Bill Klinton even bragged
>>about it on the record in one of his sturm und drung "speeches".
>
>
> EXACTLY what I was talking about, they've received several
> calls.
Folks, we need to get the exact text from the bill, including
page numbers and paragraphs, etc. on this. If it is true it
is extremely disturbing.
The conventional wisdom has long been that the feds don't have
the manpower to disarm law-abiding citizens. This is because
once some of the places started to shoot back, there would be
little cooperation from local law enforcement authorities,
and the feds would also have people quit, since they would realize
that, despite the disinformation they had been told, these were
decent people that they were killing. However, if you import
mercenaries to do this, the equation changes radically in favor
of the feds.
--
Cattle call (maybe de facto bribes don't count):
``The corrupt, do-nothing values of the 1980s must never mislead us again.
Never again should Washington reward those who speculate in paper instead of
those who put people first.'' Clinton and Gore, _Putting People First_, p.8
Richard Crisp
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release May 5, 1994
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
ON THE PASSAGE OF THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN
The Rose Garden
5:40 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: This afternoon, the House of
Representatives rose to the occasion and stood up for the national
interest. Two hundred and sixteen members stood up for our police,
our children, and for safety on our streets. They stood up against
the madness that we have come to see when criminals and terrorists
have legal access to assault weapons, and then find themselves better
armed than police, putting more and more people in increasing danger
of their lives.
The 19 assault weapons banned by this proposal are
deadly, dangerous weapons. They were designed for one purpose
only: to kill people. And as long as violent criminals have easy
access to them, they will continue to be used to kill people. We as
a nation are determined to turn that around.
In the last year there has been a sea change in the
crime debate. To be sure, there is still a national consensus in
support of the rights of hunters and sportsmen to keep and bear their
arms. And as along as I am President, those rights will continue to
be protected. But we have also overcome the partisanship and the
rhetoric that has divided us too long and kept us from our
responsibilities to provide for law and order, to protect the peace
and safety of ordinary Americans.
We have come together in the belief that more police,
more prisons, tougher sentences and better prevention, together can
make our neighborhoods safer, our streets, our schools and our homes
more secure.
This legislation passed today now becomes part of a
larger strategy to fight crime to make the American people safer.
That's what the elected mayors and governors want without regard to
party. That's what every major police organization wants,
representing people who put their lives on the line to protect the
rest of us. And, most importantly, that is what the American people
want -- the right to be safe and secure without having their freedoms
taken away by criminals or by an unresponsive or unreasoning national
government.
I want to especially thank Congressman Schumer for the
tenacity, the determination that he demonstrated in leading this
fight for so long in the House. (Applause.) And I want to thank
every member of the House of Representatives in both parties who
voted for this bill today, and in so doing, demonstrated
extraordinary courage in the face of extraordinary political pressure
to walk away.
I want to thank our remarkable Cabinet led by the
Attorney General and by Secretary Bentsen who worked so hard for the
passage of this legislation. (Applause.) I want to thank the band
of stalwart workers here in the White House, in our Congressional
Liaison Office and elsewhere, and especially I want to recognize
Karen Hancox and Rahm Emanuel who never gave up and always believed
we could win this fight. (Applause.)
Let me conclude by reminding all of you that Americans
are not divided by party or section or philosophy on their deep
yearning and determination to be safer. And so I close by extending
the hand of friendship to our friends on both sides of the aisle and
both sides of this issue. In particular, to Chairman Jack Brooks
whose leadership is going to bring us the toughest and most
significant anticrime bill ever passed by the United States Congress.
Let us go back to work until our work is finished.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Q Mr. President, how much difference did your
lobbying make, sir, do you think? How much difference did your
personal lobbying make, did you think? And when did you know that
you had it, if it was before the vote itself?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it's hard for me to know how much
difference my personal lobbying made. I made dozens of phone calls.
I finished my phone calls last night at midnight and I started again
this morning. And I continued up to the very end.
To be candid, I never did know we were going to win. I
don't think we ever knew for sure how this was going to come out. I
had an instinct right at the beginning of the vote when I spoke with
Congressman Carr.
The hunters and sportsmen of this country and the
National Rifle Association itself never had a better friend in the
Congress than him. And he decided to vote for this measure because
he thought it was the right thing to do. And after I hung up the
phone -- that was right at the beginning of the vote, I think -- I
said, you know, we might just pull this off. But I didn't know
before then.
Q Mr. President, there was a very broad subpoena
served in the White House today which might raise a number of
questions for you. How will you decide whether to assert executive
or lawyer-client privilege on things that might be very private, such
as notes to you from Vince Foster, or from you to Vince Foster?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know. I don't know anything
about it. I've been working on this all day. I have no knowledge
about it.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END5:47 P.M. EDT
Tom DeLosh
writes:
>I just heard on a program on A&E that about 300 people a year die as a
result
>of bee stings. I do not recall the exact count of people killed with
assault
>weapons (perhaps someone on this group does?), but I seem to remember it
was
>something like 400.
More like 70. The bees are more than 4 times deadlier.
-TD
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
` The King is a Fink `
` `
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Big O
wrote:
> THE WHITE HOUSE
> Office of the Press Secretary
> ________________________________________________________________
> For Immediate Release May 5, 1994
> STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
> ON THE PASSAGE OF THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN
>
> The Rose Garden
[snip]
> The 19 assault weapons banned by this proposal are
> deadly, dangerous weapons. They were designed for one purpose
> only: to kill people. And as long as violent criminals have easy
> access to them, they will continue to be used to kill people. We as
> a nation are determined to turn that around.
On a recent Sunday's Meet the Press show, Senator Diane Feinstein said
that 34 people had been killed with the 19 named weapons that her and
Congressman Schumer's bill would ban since it was introduced last October.
That means, if the last six or seven months are typical, that approximately
68 people are killed with these specific guns per year. The US has about
32,000 - 35,000 gun deaths (including suicides and accidents) per year,
which means these 19 specific killer "assault weapons" are responsible for
less than 0.21% of the gun deaths in the US.
--
Johann Opitz e-mail: johann...@smtp.esl.com
***** All Disclaimers Apply (so as to protect my employer) *****
"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On
the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed
beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." Frederic
Bastiat
Kevin A. Roll
> THE WHITE HOUSE
> Office of the Press Secretary
>our children, and for safety on our streets. They stood up against
>the madness that we have come to see when criminals and terrorists
>have legal access to assault weapons, and then find themselves better
^^^^^^^^^^^
Duh, and I thought felons were already prohibited from buying or owning
ANY gun. Silly me.
>
> The 19 assault weapons banned by this proposal are
>deadly, dangerous weapons. They were designed for one purpose
>only: to kill people. And as long as violent criminals have easy
Wrong. All guns are designed for one thing: to make bullets come out the
barrel, hopefully in a straight line. Some of them accomplish this task
better than others.
> THE PRESIDENT: Well, it's hard for me to know how much
>difference my personal lobbying made. I made dozens of phone calls.
>I finished my phone calls last night at midnight and I started again
>this morning. And I continued up to the very end.
Translation: I'm not sure how well my ignoring the US Constitution worked.
Who ever heard of separation of the Executive and the Legislative branches?
And what's this checks and balances thing?
--
PRISON FOR PRAISE - THE OBVIOUS ANSWER
ONCE HAD POWER MAD - LIVING DISASTER
DON'T **** WITH ME 'COS I"M ON THE FREEDOM TRAIN
THAT BEARS NO NAME - THIS TIME I'M VOTING WITH A BULLET
Michael P. Brininstool
Broward Horne <an...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
>In a previous article, rsch...@edcen.ehhs.cmich.edu (Ron Schwarz) says:
>>
>>> I've got a call in to my representative about the so-called
>>> "Hong Kong police" section of the Crime Bill. I'm waiting
>>> to have it verified. If true, it can only mean one thing.
>>
>>It's true, it's in there, and Krime Bill Klinton even bragged
>>about it on the record in one of his sturm und drung "speeches".
>
>
> EXACTLY what I was talking about, they've received several
> calls.
>
> United States of America. To practice "law enforcement".
>
>
> This is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
Well, If they actually bring these foreigners in, we'll see how many get
off'ed!
---------------------------------------------------------|
| #include "std/disclaimer.h" Michael P. Brininstool |
| mik...@freke.lerctr.org OR mik...@freke.lonestar.org |
|---------------------------------------------------------