Release from the Clinton Camp
Carter E. Bing
In a previous article, t...@nptn.org (Tom Grundner) says:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OCTOBER 17, 1992
SARAH BRADY, COALITION OF PROSECUTORS ENDORSE CLINTON/GORE
Handgun control advocate Sarah Brady joined a majority of the
nation's Attorneys General and more than 200 other prosecutors in
endorsing Governor Bill Clinton and Senator Al Gore today.
"It is clear that only one candidate has the courage to stand up for
the Brady Bill," said Sarah Brady, wife of former Reagan Press
Secretary Jim Brady and a lifelong Republican. "That candidate is
Bill Clinton. Sad to say, the leader of my own party will not do what
it takes. Bill Clinton is a smart, tough new Democrat. He will."
Governor Clinton thanked Sarah Brady. "I am honored that today Sarah
Brady has endorsed me, and joined us for this great event. We as a
nation are in her debt, for the cause she has championed is the right
cause."
Speaking on behalf of the 32 State Attorneys General endorsing
Clinton, Michigan Attorney General Frank Kelley said, "We all know
why we're here. We are tired of a President who uses law enforcement
officials as props instead of partners. And we see that Bill Clinton
and Al Gore offer tough, innovative solutions -- and that they will
put them into action, not just break their promises."
During his address, Clinton outlined a six-point program to fight
crime:
* Put 100,000 new police officers on the streets.
* Sign the Brady Bill.
* Work directly with hard-hit communities, supporting proven
anti-crime measures such as community policing, drug education,
and drug treatment by demand.
* Implement a Safe Schools Initiative.
* Toughen measures to stop violence against women
* Fight a real war on drugs -- strengthening interdiction and
expanding drug treatment and education.
"It is unacceptable that last year was the most violent and bloody
in our history, but it was," Clinton said. "As President, I will
insist the government live up to its responsibility to protect
people."
Cathy Gould, whose husband was a Florence, South Carolina police
officer murdered with a handgun, also spoke. Holding a picture of her
husband Rick with then Vice President Bush, Gould said, "After all
his kind words, we thought George Bush was on our side. We were
terribly wrong."
More than 30 former federal prosecutors -- including former U.S.
Attorneys General Nicholas Katzenbach (Kennedy and Johnson) and
Benjamin Civiletti (Carter) -- also endorsed Governor Clinton today.
Today's event was the latest in an unprecedented series of law
enforcement endorsements of Governor Clinton and Senator Gore.
Organizations already endorsing the ticket include the National
Association of Police Organizations (NAPO), International Brotherhood
of Police Officers (IBPO), International Union of Police Associations
(IUPA), and Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas (CLEAT).
-30-
In a previous article, t...@nptn.org (Tom Grundner) says:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OCTOBER 16, 1992
MAYORS OF FIVE MAJOR CITIES SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON
PRESIDENT BUSH'S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE NATION'S MAYORS AND CITIES
Mayors of five major cities called on George Bush today to make good
on his rhetoric and meet to discuss economic problems with the mayors
of the nations's big cities.
The mayors took exception to George Bush's remark during the first
presidential debate that "the mayors of the big cities...came to me,
and they unanimously said the decline in urban American stems from
the decline in the American family."
The five mayors -- Raymond Flynn of Boston, Richard Daley of
Chicago, Michael White of Cleveland, Jerry Abramson of Louisville,
and Norm Rice of Seattle -- noted that since George Bush has been in
office, the U.S. Conference of Mayors invited President Bush on six
occasions to address the mayors of the nation's largest cities. On
only one occasion, in January 1990 did President Bush agree to
address the mayors. He has declined all invitations since 1990. If
substantive meetings were held, the mayors said they would want to
discuss hard economic problems, not family values.
"The White House has shut the door in the face of America's mayors in
its refusal to meet with the mayors to discuss the recession," Flynn
said. "The fact that we have double-digit unemployment rates in
major cities like New York and Los Angeles proves that this
Administration has totally failed to address the most basic problems
of the American economy," he added.
In an August 4, 1991 letter to the President, Mayor Flynn, then
President of the U.S. Conference of Mayors offered a briefing by
Democratic and Republican mayors on "the need for a renewed national
urban agenda." Later that month, 32 leading mayors requested a
bipartisan meeting with the President "to work for balanced and
affordable, but real solutions to the terrible problems affecting so
many millions of our citizens, particularly working families and
needy individuals."
"It is time to set the Bush-Quayle team straight: It is their lack of
leadership, their lack of concern for what is happening to American
families that has led to the crisis," said Mayor Abramson.
"Even after the crisis in Los Angeles," Abramson added, "Bush and
Quayle failed to act. While they endorsed enterprise zones,
President Bush is threatening to veto the legislation setting up such
zones."
---30---
--
"The noblest of pursuits can hardly be thought much by men whose
own way of life run counter to it."
Socrates from The Republic of Plato
--
"The oak sleeps in the acorn, the gaint sequoia sleeps in it`s tiny seed,
the bird waits in the egg and God waits for his unfolding in man."
Funkadelic bi...@concert.net
Al Cohen
In article <1992Oct20....@rock.concert.net>, bi...@jazz.concert.net (Carter E. Bing) writes:
>
> MAYORS OF FIVE MAJOR CITIES SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON
> PRESIDENT BUSH'S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE NATION'S MAYORS AND CITIES
>
>
> "Even after the crisis in Los Angeles," Abramson added, "Bush and
> Quayle failed to act. While they endorsed enterprise zones,
> President Bush is threatening to veto the legislation setting up such
> zones."
>
This is the kind of political double-talk that has put us in the mess we're
in now. By the time ANY legislation makes it to the President's desk, it
is a "Christmas tree" - loaded with lights and gadgets. Before it leaves
Congress, both sides ensure that they've tacked on every possible "pet
project" that remotely relates to the original bill.
Every bill turns into a compromise package. You know you'll be attacked by
future opponents for suppporting/not supporting the bill because of issue
"A", but your protected because you didn't/did support the bill because of
issue "B". The only one seriously hurt by this practice is the people the
watered-down bill was originally meant to protect.
The cure for this problem is the Line Item Veto. The President can remove
any piece of the bill that he/she dislikes. Come next election, you stand
up for the choices you made - no execuses and no place to hide!
--
Al Cohen sas...@unx.sas.com (919)677-8000 x7117
SAS Institute Inc. SAS Campus Drive Cary, NC 27513
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
-- Amendment II, Bill of Rights
Caryn S. Prater
>
>In article <1992Oct20....@rock.concert.net>, bi...@jazz.concert.net (Carter E. Bing) writes:
>>
>
>
>The cure for this problem is the Line Item Veto. The President can remove
>any piece of the bill that he/she dislikes. Come next election, you stand
>up for the choices you made - no execuses and no place to hide!
>
Doesn't this just kinda' scare the bejesus out of you, that one person
can determine what they like and don't like and remove it, possibly
changing the entire complexion of the bill? Congress originates the
legislation and they are elected to do so. Scares me, especially
when the pen is manned by G.H.W. Bush and CO.
>--
>Al Cohen sas...@unx.sas.com (919)677-8000 x7117
Caryn
--
Nolite te bastardes carborunodorum
Author unknown :-)
Michael Pye
>In article <BwFov...@unx.sas.com> sas...@maggot.unx.sas.com (Al Cohen) writes:
>>The cure for this problem is the Line Item Veto. The President can remove
>>any piece of the bill that he/she dislikes. Come next election, you stand
>>up for the choices you made - no execuses and no place to hide!
>Doesn't this just kinda' scare the bejesus out of you, that one person
>can determine what they like and don't like and remove it, possibly
>changing the entire complexion of the bill? Congress originates the
>legislation and they are elected to do so. Scares me, especially
>when the pen is manned by G.H.W. Bush and CO.
I'm not sure if your understand the line-item-veto. Let's say someone
starts a bill through congress about putting a 10 cents per gallon tax
on gasoline. Congress can add WHATEVER THEY WANT to this bill. For
example, they can add funds for a new library in their home town -
things that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the original bill. It
was my understanding that the President could then wipe out any/all
of these additions, but NOT the original - without an outright veto.
Al Cohen
In article <21OCT199...@utkvx3.utk.edu>, dre...@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes:
>In article <1992Oct21....@netcom.com>, mp...@netcom.com (Michael Pye) writes...
>
>>I'm not sure if your understand the line-item-veto. Let's say someone
>>starts a bill through congress about putting a 10 cents per gallon tax
>>on gasoline. Congress can add WHATEVER THEY WANT to this bill. For
>
>the bill, the Speaker of the House determines whether the rider/
>amendment is germane to the bill or not. It's just that Tom is
>a little open-minded when it comes to riders. Criticize HIM! It's
>not the fault of the design of Congress (just its implementation)
Maybe so, but the fact remains that most leglislation contains parts that
have little, if anything, to do with the original intent of the bill.
Congress is more worried about being covered politically and pleasing their
PAC/Special interest groups than pleasing an electorate that doesn't vote.
There's a big difference between how things *should* work and how they *do*
work. Because of the way things currently work, we need 1) Line Item Veto
and 2) Term Limits.
--
Al Cohen sas...@unx.sas.com (919)677-8000 x7117
Gary Merrill
|> Maybe so, but the fact remains that most leglislation contains parts that
|> have little, if anything, to do with the original intent of the bill.
|> Congress is more worried about being covered politically and pleasing their
|> PAC/Special interest groups than pleasing an electorate that doesn't vote.
There is another (and more fundamental) force at work here as well. How
many times have you heard a politician say "I will introduce legislation to ..."?
*Everyone* does this -- even a lot of those who think themselves "conservative".
The perception (of both politicians and many of those who elect them) is that
the *job* of our representatives is to *introduce legislation* -- to implement
*more laws*. If this isn't their job (so they think), what could the job
possibly be? So if they aren't making new laws, they aren't *doing their jobs*.
Any wonder that irrelevant and frequently outrageous stuff gets tacked on to
bills as a matter of course? How can a politician go back to his electorate
for re-election with the record "I sat around for x years and did not
introduce *any* new legislation!"?
--
Gary H. Merrill [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC 27513 / (919) 677-8000
sas...@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
George W. Hunter
State the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."
Well...this statement may be in the bill of rights and some may yell and
scream for the rights of the people to carrry semi-automatic and
automatic guns/handguns, its time for the people of the United States to
wake up. No one can convince me that the "founding fathers" fully
understood the devastating effects of these types of weapons. This was
beyound their conception.
The leading cause of death of Black males between the age of 15 and 24
is murder, and can be attributed to the hand gun and other
semi-automatic weaponry. The life expectancy of these young black males
in cities like L.A. and Washington D.C. is less than the soldiers
fighting in Vietnam. How can we as a society use these "Bill of Rights"
as a shield and hide our eyes to the reality that a generation of the
nation's youth are being systematically eliminated? What of the rights
of the hundreds of lives that are needlessly snuffed out every month of
every year?
While its true that a major root to these problems is the drug issue.
We must deal with this issue, but we must also cure the immediate
problem. The problem is the availibility of guns. It is irrelevent
where the weapons are obtained. The relevent matter is that the guns
are available and they are availible to anyone who wants them.
Lets take a lead form Canada, from Sweeden, from England. These
countries have outlawed the handgun. And an amazing thing has
happened....They have in essence no murders by handgun! If you combine
the total number of deaths by handgun in all of three of these countries
for the last five years, they do not compare with the number of deaths
in D.C. alone last year. In Canada, we are talking about less than 20
murders by handgun last year!
Lets stop being incredibly stupid and open our eyes to the reality that
we as a nation will have to eliminate these weapons sooner or later, if
we are to save this generation of black males. Lets make it
sooner....don't let another innocent person die a meaningless and
avoidable death.
Please, I would like to hear some divergent views on this matter.
George W. Hunter III
grad student an Carnegie Mellon U.
Bertil Jonell
>Lets take a lead form Canada, from Sweeden, from England. These
>countries have outlawed the handgun.
Sweden: On a population of 8megs, about 100000 people are 'recreational
handgunners' ie they own one or more handguns they use in shooting
competitions. About as many are members of the Home Guard and have a G3 full-
auto 7.62 assaultrifle or a m/45B full-auto 9mm SMG in the cupboard at home.
Add to this the hunters, and you will get a total of about 250000 persons
who possess guns here.
>And an amazing thing has
>happened....They have in essence no murders by handgun!
About 5 to 10 last year I think. Definately above five this year.
>Lets stop being incredibly stupid and open our eyes to the reality that
>we as a nation will have to eliminate these weapons sooner or later, if
>we are to save this generation of black males.
Somebody told me once that the first Californian gun laws came in the 60's
when Blacks wanted to arm themselves. Does anybody have any background on this?
>George W. Hunter III
>grad student an Carnegie Mellon U.
-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
exercise for your kill-file."
George W. Hunter
State the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."
Well...this statement may be in the bill of rights and some may yell and
scream for the rights of the people to carrry semi-automatic and
automatic guns/handguns, its time for the people of the United States to
wake up. No one can convince me that the "founding fathers" fully
understood the devastating effects of these types of weapons. This was
beyound their conception.
The leading cause of death of Black males between the age of 15 and 24
is murder, and can be attributed to the hand gun and other
semi-automatic weaponry. The life expectancy of these young black males
in cities like L.A. and Washington D.C. is less than the soldiers
fighting in Vietnam. How can we as a society use these "Bill of Rights"
as a shield and hide our eyes to the reality that a generation of the
nation's youth are being systematically eliminated? What of the rights
of the hundreds of lives that are needlessly snuffed out every month of
every year?
While its true that a major root to these problems is the drug issue.
We must deal with this issue, but we must also cure the immediate
problem. The problem is the availibility of guns. It is irrelevent
where the weapons are obtained. The relevent matter is that the guns
are available and they are availible to anyone who wants them.
Lets take a lead form Canada, from Sweeden, from England. These
countries have outlawed the handgun. And an amazing thing has
happened....They have in essence no murders by handgun! If you combine
the total number of deaths by handgun in all of three of these countries
for the last five years, they do not compare with the number of deaths
in D.C. alone last year. In Canada, we are talking about less than 20
murders by handgun last year!
Lets stop being incredibly stupid and open our eyes to the reality that
we as a nation will have to eliminate these weapons sooner or later, if
we are to save this generation of black males. Lets make it
sooner....don't let another innocent person die a meaningless and
avoidable death.
Please, I would like to hear some divergent views on this matter.
George W. Hunter III
how...@iscsvax.uni.edu
>
> The leading cause of death of Black males between the age of 15 and 24
> is murder, and can be attributed to the hand gun and other
> semi-automatic weaponry. The life expectancy of these young black males
> in cities like L.A. and Washington D.C. is less than the soldiers
> fighting in Vietnam. How can we as a society use these "Bill of Rights"
> as a shield and hide our eyes to the reality that a generation of the
> nation's youth are being systematically eliminated? What of the rights
> of the hundreds of lives that are needlessly snuffed out every month of
> every year?
>
> While its true that a major root to these problems is the drug issue.
> We must deal with this issue, but we must also cure the immediate
> problem. The problem is the availibility of guns. It is irrelevent
> where the weapons are obtained. The relevent matter is that the guns
> are available and they are availible to anyone who wants them.
>
>
> George W. Hunter III
> grad student an Carnegie Mellon U.
A year ago in Iowa City where I live a PHD student from China (with
only a student visa) walked into a local sporting goods and was
sold a handgun. A month later he shot and killed the head of the
Physics Department, two professors, and another PHD student. Then he
went to the administration building and killed a woman vice-president.
He also shot in the mouth a student, who is now paralyzed from the
neck down. She was working temporarily for the vice-president, having
just gotten back from San Salvador. I knew her. A friend of hers
after the shooting said that she used to get mad at him if he bought
her cut flowers rather than in a pot, because she didn't want to even
kill flowers for no reason.
While I think it would be very difficult to outlaw handguns in this
country, it doesn't seem right that a person can get a gun easier than
they can get a driver's license, especially if that person is not even
a U.S. citizen.
In my view, possession of an illegal gun should be a crime, with a mandatory
prison sentence. Use of an illegal gun in a crime should carry a longer
sentence. I hate the thought of having to have metal detectors on the
entrances to the elementary and high schools, but it is coming to that.
____________________________________
Mary Howard
"A crisis of community, a spiritual crisis calls upon each of us to remember
and to act upon our obligations to one another. The purpose of community,
the purpose of our government, the purpose of our leaders should be to call
us to pursue common values and common good, not simply in the moment of
extreme crisis but every day in our lives, starting right now, today. "
-Bill Clinton, at Notre Dame, 9/11/92
Christopher Morton
> "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
> State the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
> infringed."
>
> Well...this statement may be in the bill of rights and some may yell and
> scream for the rights of the people to carrry semi-automatic and
> automatic guns/handguns, its time for the people of the United States to
> wake up. No one can convince me that the "founding fathers" fully
> understood the devastating effects of these types of weapons. This was
> beyound their conception.
Really? Have you ever been struck by a .69 musket ball? Believe me, I'm sure
that it hurts every bit as much as a 5.45mm fmj, and THEY didn't have medivacs
or even antiseptics.
Of course this raises some OTHER interesting questions. Do you think that they
could have imagined radio, tv, electronic typsetters, desktop publishing or
computer networks? If THEY were beyond their conception, does that invalidate
the 1st Amendment?
> The leading cause of death of Black males between the age of 15 and 24
> is murder, and can be attributed to the hand gun and other
> semi-automatic weaponry. The life expectancy of these young black males
> in cities like L.A. and Washington D.C. is less than the soldiers
> fighting in Vietnam. How can we as a society use these "Bill of Rights"
> as a shield and hide our eyes to the reality that a generation of the
> nation's youth are being systematically eliminated? What of the rights
> of the hundreds of lives that are needlessly snuffed out every month of
> every year?
>
The same way we use the 1st and 5th amendments. They protect EVERYBODY. When
you start limiting them, you ENDANGER everybody. The REAL question is how we
can make ourselves safer by destroying the rights of non-criminals?
> While its true that a major root to these problems is the drug issue.
> We must deal with this issue, but we must also cure the immediate
> problem. The problem is the availibility of guns. It is irrelevent
> where the weapons are obtained. The relevent matter is that the guns
> are available and they are availible to anyone who wants them.
>
And they will CONTINUE to be available. There's NOTHING you can do about it.
At most you can severely limit the rights of ALL people, and not just regarding
guns. You can no more uninvent guns than you can uninvent fire. People make
submachineguns in PRISON. Along with banning the 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendments
will you also ban machinetools and seemless aluminum tubing?
> Lets take a lead form Canada, from Sweeden, from England. These
> countries have outlawed the handgun. And an amazing thing has
> happened....They have in essence no murders by handgun! If you combine
> the total number of deaths by handgun in all of three of these countries
> for the last five years, they do not compare with the number of deaths
> in D.C. alone last year. In Canada, we are talking about less than 20
> murders by handgun last year!
Their murder rates are RISING. Of course that's beside the point anyway. Why
not take the lead of South Africa? We could institute a pass law system and
limit the movements of young Black males. We could make them live in barbed
wire enclosed hostels so that the police could better control their movements.
Why not follow THAT example? The next thing you know, you'll be telling me
that that would be unconstitutional and WRONG....
Of course if you DID get your way, and you conferred upon Daryl Gates and
Jesse Helms the monopoly on the means of armed force, the above probably WOULD
happen.
> Lets stop being incredibly stupid and open our eyes to the reality that
> we as a nation will have to eliminate these weapons sooner or later, if
> we are to save this generation of black males. Lets make it
> sooner....don't let another innocent person die a meaningless and
> avoidable death.
>
NOBODY can eliminate them without eliminating the constitution as a whole, not
just the 2nd amendment. Of course the Soviet Union didn't HAVE the 2nd
amendment, and THEY couldn't take everybody's gun away EITHER. If you want to
REALLY do away with all PRIVATELY (read owned by Blacks) owned weapons, you'd
better ditch the pissy little examples and use REAL law and order environments,
like North Korea and South Africa.
> Please, I would like to hear some divergent views on this matter.
>
Was THAT enough?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?"
------------------------------------------------------------------
George Horwath
bi...@jazz.concert.net (Carter E. Bing) writes:
>In a previous article, t...@nptn.org (Tom Grundner) says:
> During his address, Clinton outlined a six-point program to fight
> crime:
> * Put 100,000 new police officers on the streets.
What does this *really* mean, since police officers are hired by cities? Is
he suggesting that the federal government will provide the salaries for these
new police officers?
> * Work directly with hard-hit communities, supporting proven
> anti-crime measures such as community policing, drug education,
> and drug treatment by demand.
What does "work directly" and "supporting" mean? More federal funds?
> * Toughen measures to stop violence against women
Why? MEN are the victims of most violent crimes. Is Clinton suggesting that
women deserve to be the victims of violence less than men?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is not the employer who pays the | Motorola
wages - he only handles the money. | I speak for myself,
It is the customer who pays the wages." | not my employer
- Henry Ford | hor...@rtsg.mot.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide
>"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
>State the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
>infringed."
>Well...this statement may be in the bill of rights and some may yell and
>scream for the rights of the people to carrry semi-automatic and
>automatic guns/handguns, its time for the people of the United States to
>wake up. No one can convince me that the "founding fathers" fully
>understood the devastating effects of these types of weapons. This was
>beyound their conception.
>Please, I would like to hear some divergent views on this matter.
George,
You are correct. The right to keep weapons is enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
And you are also correct when you point out that the Founders had no clue
what the weapons of today would be capable of doing. I'll go farther and say
that the nature of society has irrevocably changed, and that what was a
reasonable proposal then (that all people should be able to keep any weapons
they wanted) is certainly a questionable proposal today.
The fact remains, though, that the Constitution is the supreme law of our
land, and that right or wrong, the Constitution guarantees you and me the
right to own "arms" - which presumably includes handguns.
I didn't include and won't comment on your supporting arguments, because
while they make a compelling case against guns, they do not address a basic
issue, which is that if you wish to implement a ban on handguns or any other
kind of guns, you must first change the Constitution. Until you repeal the
Second Amendment, it's all just an excercise in futility. And getting the voters
in this country to repeal the second amendment will be a big job.
JZ
Greg Gross
>
> Somebody told me once that the first Californian gun laws came in the 60's
> when Blacks wanted to arm themselves. Does anybody have any background on thi
>
Bertil:
If memory serves, I think you're referring to 1967, when Huey Newton and
Bobby Seale led a group of member of the Black Panther Party into the
California legislature in Sacramento, carrying a variety of unloaded
rifles, carbines and shotguns.
They were breaking no law, as the police and the legislators themselves
were forced to acknowledge, but the sight of all these young,
non-singing, non-dancing, non-shuffling and non-smiling black men
exercising THEIR Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms -- in
public -- scared the living daylights out of the virtualy all-white
California legislators, who promptly responded by passing a state law
banning the carrying of firearms in public, loaded or not.
G.
--
Gregory Alan Gross Welcome to life, where no good deed goes unpunished.
San Diego Union-Tribune (619) 293-1270 (voice)
P.O. Box 191 (619) 293-2333 (fax)
San Diego, CA 92112-4106 ga...@netlink.cts.com (Internet)
Christopher Morton
> While I think it would be very difficult to outlaw handguns in this
> country, it doesn't seem right that a person can get a gun easier than
> they can get a driver's license, especially if that person is not even
> a U.S. citizen.
Depending upon where you live, it ISN'T that easy. Try buying one in St. Louis
County, MO or in Washington, DC. Of course neither one of those places is
noted for it's lack of crime.
> In my view, possession of an illegal gun should be a crime, with a mandatory
> prison sentence. Use of an illegal gun in a crime should carry a longer
> sentence. I hate the thought of having to have metal detectors on the
> entrances to the elementary and high schools, but it is coming to that.
>
In a lot of places, most of the things you want are already in existence,
depending upon your specific definitions.
Repressive, anti-democratic gun controls never protect ANYBODY, especially
Black people... unless you're a criminal.
Gary Merrill
In article <horwath.719773125@geode11>, hor...@rtsg.mot.com (George Horwath) writes:
|> Please excuse my naivete, BUT....
|>
|> bi...@jazz.concert.net (Carter E. Bing) writes:
|> >In a previous article, t...@nptn.org (Tom Grundner) says:
|> > During his address, Clinton outlined a six-point program to fight
|> > crime:
|> > * Work directly with hard-hit communities, supporting proven
|> > anti-crime measures such as community policing, drug education,
|> > and drug treatment by demand.
|>
|> What does "work directly" and "supporting" mean? More federal funds?
Moreover, what does "proven" mean? And what are the criteria of proof?
In the cases known to me, the critera of proof, the gathering and the
analysis of the evidence are all handled by (surprise!) the agencies
that will be funded.
Dean Calloway
that gun control. by "George W. Hunter"@andre
> murders by handgun last year!
> Lets stop being incredibly stupid and open our eyes to the reality that
> we as a nation will have to eliminate these weapons sooner or later, if
> we are to save this generation of black males. Lets make it
> sooner....don't let another innocent person die a meaningless and
> avoidable death.
>
> Please, I would like to hear some divergent views on this matter.
>
> George W. Hunter III
I don't think you need to hear something else when you are so incredibly
right.
DCAL
Christopher Morton
> d9be...@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) writes:
>
> >
> > Somebody told me once that the first Californian gun laws came in the 60's
> > when Blacks wanted to arm themselves. Does anybody have any background on thi
> >
>
> Bertil:
>
> If memory serves, I think you're referring to 1967, when Huey Newton and
> Bobby Seale led a group of member of the Black Panther Party into the
> California legislature in Sacramento, carrying a variety of unloaded
> rifles, carbines and shotguns.
>
> They were breaking no law, as the police and the legislators themselves
> were forced to acknowledge, but the sight of all these young,
> non-singing, non-dancing, non-shuffling and non-smiling black men
> exercising THEIR Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms -- in
> public -- scared the living daylights out of the virtualy all-white
> California legislators, who promptly responded by passing a state law
> banning the carrying of firearms in public, loaded or not.
> G.
>
Wasn't HCI formed by an ex-CIA official whose daughter was murdered by the
"Scorpio" killer(s)? Weren't the latter alleged to be Black?
Tim Smith
> I didn't include and won't comment on your supporting arguments, because
>while they make a compelling case against guns, they do not address a basic
>issue, which is that if you wish to implement a ban on handguns or any other
>kind of guns, you must first change the Constitution. Until you repeal the
>Second Amendment, it's all just an excercise in futility.
An even more basic issue is that behind most of the killings by gun is
someone who wanted to kill someone else.
--Tim Smith
Christopher Morton
The problem with that is that it implies personal responsibility for one's own
actions. THAT is a concept that some run screaming from in sheer terror....
Mark Wilson
|>The cure for this problem is the Line Item Veto. The President can remove
|>any piece of the bill that he/she dislikes. Come next election, you stand
|>up for the choices you made - no execuses and no place to hide!
|>
|Doesn't this just kinda' scare the bejesus out of you, that one person
|can determine what they like and don't like and remove it, possibly
|changing the entire complexion of the bill? Congress originates the
|legislation and they are elected to do so. Scares me, especially
|when the pen is manned by G.H.W. Bush and CO.
Why should it scare you, if the bill is truly popular within congress
they can override the veto.
--
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine. Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark....@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Scott Barber
>
What it takes is to
>ignore the fact that the Constitution expressly prohibits the government from
>infringing the right to bear arms,
I'm not aware that the Brady Bill infringes on anyone's right to
bear arms, does it? Please correct me if I'm wrong. I thought it
was a measure to require a waiting period before purchase.
Personally, it seems to me to be moderately useless, but I don't see
how it is an infringement of the right to bear arms.
The ammendment doesn't say, for example, that you can buy any arms
TODAY and without registration, nor that 6-year olds can take them
to school. I feel that both of these "infringements" are not only
constitutional and reasonable, but also an important step toward
making the society safer. Many others feel that this alone is
precisely the government's role.
>and that a great portion of the people are
>opposed to gun control.
My understanding is that the overwhelming majority of Americans
favor gun control. Additionally, the NRA is one of the most
powerful special interest lobbies in existence. I believe this is
the group being referred to by Sarah Brady, not the American people
as a whole, as you suggest below.
>If we, the people, are opposed to gun control then
>nobody has any business doing "what it takes" to impose it.
Would you agree that if we, the people, are indeed FOR reasonable
and constitutional gun control measures, that the government should
not stand in the way of it?
Scott
Scott Barber "I voted for the crazy, bozo, ozone men."
bar...@jazz.concert.net --- Tuesday, November Third ---
MCNC, RTP, NC, BVD --- Many Voted, Bush Retired ---
(anagramatized!!!)
Scott Barber
> [...]
>|> > * Work directly with hard-hit communities, supporting proven
>|> > anti-crime measures such as community policing, drug education,
>|> > and drug treatment by demand.
>|>
>|> What does "work directly" and "supporting" mean? More federal funds?
>
>Moreover, what does "proven" mean? And what are the criteria of proof?
>In the cases known to me, the critera of proof, the gathering and the
>analysis of the evidence are all handled by (surprise!) the agencies
>that will be funded.
Good questions, I'm curious myself. However, I am aware of few
public agencies that have the resources to do research, quite the
contrary. I would bet that most of the -level research on community
policing, drug education and drug treatment has been conducted by
academics and govt-funded agencies. Whereas the academic research is
likely to be more basic and theory-driven, the govt research has
likely included examination of strategies to promote cost-effectiveness
and cost savings (out of sheer survival neccesity).
This is conjecture, as I haven't done much reading in criminal justice
or community education journals (academic or applied) in several years.
Scott
Scott Barber "I voted for the crazy, bozo, ozone men."
bar...@jazz.concert.net --- Tuesday, November Third ---
MCNC, RTP, NC, BVD --- Many Voted, Bush Retired ---
(anagramatized!!)
Bill Meyers
[ ... ]
>My understanding is that the overwhelming majority of Americans
>favor gun control. Additionally, the NRA is one of the most
>powerful special interest lobbies in existence. I believe this is
>the group being referred to by Sarah Brady, not the American people
>as a whole, as you suggest below.
The overwhelming majority of Americans think there isn't any "gun
control" because the paid media generally over reports gun crime,
and continually advocates "gun control" laws as a solution. When
people begin to learn just how much gun law is already in place --
and how effective it obviously isn't -- their support for more of
the same tends to diminish. When they begin to think about how
more gun laws reduce _their_ options, while so obviously failing
to reduce crime, their support vanishes or turns into opposition.
The NRA has roughly 3 million members, about the same as the AAA.
If Mothers Against Drunk Driving had chosen to advocate banning of
cheap, unsafe cars ("Saturday Night Specials"), automobile brokerage
services ("Mail Order Murder"), radar-absorbing auto body materials
("Undetectable Plastic Cars"), heavy duty truck bumpers ("Cop-Killer
Pickups"), and sporty-looking ("Assault") cars with tailfins and
semi-automatic transmissions, the _members_ of the AAA would have
opposed some of that nonsense and the AAA would no doubt have had
to organize a lobbying division, as the NRA did about 1976.
If MADD and the airhead media had then decided to continue with the
resulting culture war, you would even now be hearing about the "evil
empire" AAA, a "powerful special-interest group" opposed to reasonable
car control. And, of course, about the lone heroine Sarah Hazy, who's
bravely standing up to these curs on behalf of the "American people".
Hey, it could still happen -- if, for example, VP-elect AlGore follows
through on his idea of banning all cars more than 10 years old ...
David Marc Nieporent
>In article <1992Nov5.2...@rock.concert.net> bar...@jazz.concert.net (Scott Barber) writes:
>>What it takes is to
>>>ignore the fact that the Constitution expressly prohibits the government
>>>from infringing the right to bear arms,
>>I'm not aware that the Brady Bill infringes on anyone's right to
>>bear arms, does it? Please correct me if I'm wrong. I thought it
>>was a measure to require a waiting period before purchase.
>>Personally, it seems to me to be moderately useless, but I don't see
>>how it is an infringement of the right to bear arms.
>Well, I guess it is no more an infringement on the right to bear arms
>than a waiting period before printing anything would be an
>infringement of the right to free speech.
I wish you people would get the (IMHO silly) analogy correct. The Brady
Bill doesn't require a waiting period before *using* a gun. It requires
a waiting period before *buying* a gun.
Thus, a waiting period on purchasing a printing press would be the
appropriate analogy.
--
David M. Nieporent | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix. |------------------------------------
princeton.edu | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92. Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
David Veal
>In article <1992Nov10.1...@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov5.2...@rock.concert.net> bar...@jazz.concert.net (Scott Barber) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct22....@dg-rtp.dg.com> cro...@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
>
>>>What it takes is to
>>>>ignore the fact that the Constitution expressly prohibits the government
>>>>from infringing the right to bear arms,
>
>>>I'm not aware that the Brady Bill infringes on anyone's right to
>>>bear arms, does it? Please correct me if I'm wrong. I thought it
>>>was a measure to require a waiting period before purchase.
>>>Personally, it seems to me to be moderately useless, but I don't see
>>>how it is an infringement of the right to bear arms.
>
>>Well, I guess it is no more an infringement on the right to bear arms
>>than a waiting period before printing anything would be an
>>infringement of the right to free speech.
>
>I wish you people would get the (IMHO silly) analogy correct. The Brady
>Bill doesn't require a waiting period before *using* a gun. It requires
>a waiting period before *buying* a gun.
>
>Thus, a waiting period on purchasing a printing press would be the
>appropriate analogy.
A waiting period on the purchase of something is equivilent to a
waiting period on the use of it, because your ability to use it is denied
for the duration of the waiting period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
Information Services Group
PA14...@utkvm1.utk.edu (Mail to VE...@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Robert Slugg
B
>
>I wish you people would get the (IMHO silly) analogy correct. The Brady
>Bill doesn't require a waiting period before *using* a gun. It requires
>a waiting period before *buying* a gun.
>
>Thus, a waiting period on purchasing a printing press would be the
>appropriate analogy.
>
Actually, a better analogy would be for PC's. Imagine having to wait a
week to get approval from some bureaucrat before you could buy your
computer. I'm sure many of us have experienced that with our purchasing
departments. Imagine how PO'd you'd be if they said you could only buy
one with 2 floppy drives, that posession of a hard drive would allow you
to posess dangerous amounts of information and would give you the ability
to distribute that information at politically unacceptable rates. When a
government goes bad, they pretty much go after guns and printing presses
(today we call these PC's and copiers) in their first move to suppress
people. Sometime down the road I expect to see PC's and modems regulated
under the guise of being able to reduce crime due to hackers breaking into
banks and government offices. The proposed law seems reasonable, but the
real intent will be to either tax computers (remember, NC already requires
you to list both guns and computers for your county personal property
listing) or to regulate their use. As with guns, it would be the innocent
being punished for the acts of the criminals. While some of you say this
is impossible given the millions of PC's in private hands, there are 200
million guns in private hands, and the same people willing to have them
banned believing it will grant them safety are the same people who believe
taking privately owned PC's away from people will guarantee that their
credit card and and bank accounts won't be mangled by little geeky
socially inept hackers. Ben Franklin said that those who trade essential
freedoms (ie gun ownership) for temporary safety deserve neither.
Remember, the gun in my house protects you as well, because if a criminal
doesn't know who lives in a house, it might be me, he probably won't break
in. If all you people who want guns banned think they do no good in
society, then put a big sign in front of your house saying that there are
no guns on the premises. I knew you wouldn't.
Bob