Clinton Rushes To Exploit Colorado Shootings

www.capitolhillblue.com 4-22-99

In tragedy, there is political opportunity.

The Clinton Administration may use the tragic school shootings in Colorado to propose sweeping new gun control legislation that could lead to an outright gun ban or require Americans to register every gun they own with the federal government, Capitol Hill Blue has learned.

Within minutes of learning of the shootings that left at least 15 people dead in the Denver suburb of Littleton, the Clinton spin team went into action, generating memos on the best ways for the President to capitalize on the tragedy.

"The President asked for a number of scenarios for the best way to deal with the situation," one White House aide said Tuesday night. "At first he was going to decry the incident and call for new gun bans. Some advised against doing so that quickly, so he backed off and just went with a short statement that said it was too soon to say anything."

Aides say Clinton spent most of Tuesday afternoon monitoring the situation where at least two students at Columbine High School in Littleton went on a shooting and bomb throwing spree before killing themselves.

White House pollsters worked the phones, sampling public opinion, trying to gauge just how far Americans voters would let the administration go.

Hours later, Clinton went before a press conference and hinted that he may use the tragedy for stronger action by the federal government.

"I think after a little time has passed, we need to have a candid assessment about what more we can do to try to prevent these things from happening," Clinton said.

According to White House sources, among the options being prepared for Clinton's consideration:

An outright ban on handguns and an expanded list of "non-sporting" weapons; Mandatory registration of all guns owned by Americans; Laws to make parents criminally responsible when their children use guns to commit a crime; Entering the many lawsuits that cities have filed against gun manufacturers (on the side of the cities); Federal funds to place metal detectors in all American schools; Federal money to place undercover police officers in schools; Federally-mandated school dress codes that would ban gang colors and other "non-appropriate attire;" Banning student shooting teams at schools.

"The President made it very clear he wants to take action on this," said one White House senior aide. "He will not allow this incident to pass without taking action. He feels the public will support whatever course of action he decides to take."

One source said White House spinmeister Sidney J. Blumenthal has urged the President to use the Colorado shootings to divert attention from both the China spying scandal and the Kosovo war that has resulted in mounting criticism of the White House.

Blumenthal reminded the President that his "show of concern" during the Oklahoma City Bombing revived his Presidency just when Clinton's popularity was at its lowest ebb.

"Leave it to Sid to find a bright spot in a public tragedy," says veteran public relations man Samuel Wastell. "I'll bet you there's a poll in the field right now testing the public's support for new gun control legislation."

Gun show owner John Hylton said he isn't surprised to learn the Clinton administration is considering a new gun ban.

"He will use this to curry favor with the gun-control advocates," Hylton said. "But that's not the answer. From what I understand, these kids also used pipe bombs. Pipe bombs are already illegal, but that didn't stop the kids from using them."

Clinton also ordered his staff to see check into a trip to Colorado immediately following the NATO summit in Washington.

"He feels a very public show of support is very important right now," one aide says. "It's a shame the NATO conference might get in the way of this."

___________

WASHINGTON (AP) - Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder expressed hope today that the Colorado school shootings would spur passage of ``reasonable restrictions on the possession of guns,'' including some aimed at keeping them out of the hands of kids.

``I would hope ... one of the positive things that would come out of this very tragic event in Littleton would be the passage of the legislation that we will be proposing again,'' Holder told the department's weekly news conference.

Attorney General Janet Reno was in Denver for meetings with law enforcement officers, members of the Littleton community, victim services providers and those who responded first to Tuesday's violence at Columbine High School. Fifteen people were killed, including a teacher and the two students who were suspects in the attack.

Holder said a package of gun controls will be sent to Congress within several weeks. Some of these proposals have been unsuccessful in previous sessions of the Republican-controlled Congress and are opposed by the National Rifle Association.

Foremost among the five ideas under consideration, Holder said, is one to extend the Brady Act's prohibitions on gun possession to people who committed violent crimes as juveniles. The current ban only applies to adult convictions.

``We want to ... ensure that young people who have been convicted of serious crimes don't have access to guns, in the way that we now, under the Brady law, prevent adults who convicted of serious crimes from ever possessing guns. ... If a person, however old, commits a violent crime, that person should not be allowed to possess a gun,'' Holder said.

Although acknowledging that ``there is obviously a strong gun lobby'' and some opposition in the Congress, Holder said passage of some new controls is possible because ``the public polls always show the vast majority of the American people support reasonable restrictions placed on the possession of guns.''

Justice Department officials said the other controls that might be proposed included:

-Requiring manufacturers to install triggerlocks on guns.

-Raising the penalties for adults who transfer guns to juveniles.

-A minimum three-day cooling-off period before the purchase by anyone of a handgun.

-Extending the Brady Act's instant background checks on gun-buyers to sales at gun shows.

Meantime, Kathryn Turman, acting director of Justice's Office for Victims of Crime, said her staff was awaiting a request from Jefferson County, Colo., or the Colorado state victims office for funds to provide victim compensation.

She said her office still has most of a $50 million fund, created after the Oklahoma City federal building bombing in 1995, to use for victims of terrorism or mass violence.

This money can be used to pay for the lost wages of parents' who were caring for injured children, funeral expenses, uninsured medical care and private mental health counseling.

Turman's office is three years into a $1 million five-year demonstration program to create a model victim services organization in the Denver metropolitan area.

``As a result, Denver is one of the most prepared cities in the nation for an event like this,'' Turman said. The Victim Services 2000 plan already has 75 victim advocates on the scene who were training by the federal government.

In addition, a separate public-private group, the Colorado-Oklahoma Resource Council, set up with a $400,000 Justice Department grant, was trained and put in place to assist victim families who traveled to Denver for the trials of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols for the Oklahoma City bombing.

``They have developed a good system for credentialing mental health providers,'' Turman said, noting that ``a lot of people showed up in Denver claiming to be mental health counselors'' during the trials.

Turman added that counseling needs can extend six months or more after an event as reality slowly sinks in. And in addition to direct victims, there are indirect victims, including unharmed students in the school and even some of the law enforcement and medical personnel who provided the first response.

``In Oklahoma City, we've found that suicide rates are higher among the first responders than among the victims themselves,'' Turman said.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 23, 1999

Answers

the price of freedom is vigilance... C

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), April 23, 1999.

Oh c'mon Andy, doesn't anything surprise you?

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), April 23, 1999.

Shucks, Paul. Andy and a lot of us were surprised to discover that Algore had invented the Internet ......

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 23, 1999.

There will have to be a revolutionary war here before the people will stomach a outright gun ban. Not saying its impossible though, just that it would have to occur in the aftermatch of y2k, not before.

However, I fully expect a "temporary" ban on new gun sales by this fall.

-- a (a@a.a), April 23, 1999.

Jesse Ventura (the "mind") had the only sensible comment I've heard from a public figure, which was to the effect that if some (of the teachers, principal, etc.) had concealed carry (of guns) that the toll would have been a lot less. I might add, that why should not students be able to defend themselves, also. Anyway, someone got to Ventura and he retaracted his statement.

Anyone knowing Ventura, or how to effectively reach him -- tell him to retract his retraction, and don't start acting like the typical mealmouthed, conniving, poultroonish, jerkoff politician.

-- A (A@AisA.com), April 23, 1999.

Yeah right, more gun laws and legislation.

If memory serves, it is illegal in all 50 states, territories, provices and territorial waters, and in most nations, to commit murder. In many cases the penalty is life imprisonment or death.

Still doesn't deter those intent on killing.

The problem isn't guns, their availability or the lobby.

It's a wonton disregard for law and the sanctity of life.

A spiritual problem you cannot legislate.

But the emoting can't see that reality.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), April 23, 1999.

I agree with you there, Invar, yup yup yup.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), April 23, 1999.

INVAR,

>The problem isn't guns, their availability or the lobby.

Name an easily concealable non-gun weapon that would have allowed those kids to so easily kill 15 others of their choosing.

Knives? No.

Bow-and-arrow? On the verge of possibility, but lots harder to deliver lethal shots, and can't be fired as rapidly. Ammunition considerably more bulky (but, could be reusable if recovered).

Dynamite? Unless they herded the other kids into a small enclosed area first, highly probable to just maim most.

>It's a wonton disregard for law and the sanctity of life.

Guns enable people with those qualities to easily, conveniently carry out their lethal aims more readily than any other weapon.

>A spiritual problem you cannot legislate.

But we could legislate making guns less commonly available to those with the above disregards.

>But the emoting can't see that reality.

Ditto? Or _can_ *you* see that replacing guns with any other as-easily available weapon in the Littleton scenario would result in significantly fewer casualties?

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 23, 1999.

Off-topic, Meerkat :)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 23, 1999.

No Spam --

True, guns make it easier to kill specific individuals. But-- if you want to kill a large number of people and you're not too choosy about who, then bombs will work very well. Such as in a crowded auditorium or at a sporting event. I think that if all guns were somehow magically eliminated, then sick and twisted people such as the assailants at Columbine HS would simply turn to another means of destruction. It's very hard to stop someone who's willing to die.

-- Max Dixon (mcdixon@konnections.com), April 23, 1999.

Look, folks !!!!!!!

Andy's admitting INVAR's posting was OFF-TOPIC.

Quote: "Off-topic, Meerkat :)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 23, 1999. "

On Shakespeare's birthday, yet.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 23, 1999.

Meerkat.

You never cease to amaze me.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 23, 1999.

Meerkats Rule!

-- little critters are (kinda@cute.huh?), April 23, 1999.

Max Dixon (mcdixon@konnections.com),

>True, guns make it easier to kill specific individuals.

... and non-specific ones.

More than any other personal weapon, they allow easy precise delivery of killing force at a distance.

Remember "Raiders of the Lost Ark"? Where Indiana Jones is attacked by a man with a sword after he's dispatched a previous attacker at the end of a sword fight, makes a face, draws his gun, and shoots the sword-wielder (usually, to movie audience applause for the way he switched to a more practical, efficient method of killing).

>But-- if you want to kill a large number of people and you're not too choosy about who, then bombs will work very well.

Did the kids in Colorado use guns or not? Answer: they did.

Did they bring in and set bombs. Yes, _after THEIR GUNS allowed them to create a situation in which they could do so_.

What killed the 15 who died -- guns or bombs? Answer: guns.

Which weapon is used in at least 100 (probably 1000, but let's be conservative) times as many U.S. murders each year as the other -- guns or bombs? Answer: guns.

>I think that if all guns were somehow magically eliminated, then sick and twisted people such as the assailants at Columbine HS would simply turn to another means of destruction.

If you're willing to be realistic, you'll have to admit that all the other means of destruction are less efficient, effective, feasible, or otherwise would result in a lower number of murders per year.

If not, _the killers would choose those other weapons now_.

Given a choice between cutting the murder rate in half and not cutting it at all, which do you choose?

>It's very hard to stop someone who's willing to die.

It's a lot easier to stop someone who doesn't have a gun than someone who does, all else being equal.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 23, 1999.

No Spam Please you are and idiot.

I watched the whole thing unfold Tuesday (I live 10 miles from Columbine High), and I'll tell you this. A large portion of those kids were killed by the bombs. If the perpetrators weren't carrying around sawed-off shotguns (pretty worthless unless point blank) and had concentrated on finding huddled students they could have killed a lot more just using the bombs.

The real tragedy was the cowardly police. Over 6 arrived within 8 minutes but no one aggresively attacked the perpetrators for nearly two hours. They took some fire and retreated. Shots and explosions continued nearly the whole time. The coach died from loss of blood, since the students attending him were not freed until the very end of the two hours. Don't trust the police to protect you. They let unarmed kids die because their skins couldn't take fire, even with body armor and SWAT tactics.

-- Jim the Window Washer (Rational@man.com), April 23, 1999.

little critters,

bwaaaaahhhhhaaaaaaaahhaaaaaaahhhhaaaaaaahaaaaahahahaha...!

funny!

Yes, old No Spam means well but he needs a good kick up the arse as me old dad used to say before he popped his clogs.

I look upon No Spam as my own pet Meerkat, ever seen the painting "The Scream" ???

That's what I usually do when reading a Meerkat post :)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 23, 1999.

Jim the window washer,

I live, too - just down the road from you - monaco/belleview area...

As Spidey said on another thread - where were the SAS? The Delta Force boys? I'm being facetious - those folks look upon the Littleton Police with scorn - what the hell were they thinking? - just go IN!!!! - they kept parents away who were willing to do just that...

The whole incident is totally bizarre -

2 hours + ???

not surprised...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 23, 1999.

Jim the Window Washer (Rational@man.com),

>A large portion of those kids were killed by the bombs.

USA Today: "the fatal shooting of 12 students and one teacher" (doesn't include the two who shot themselves)

Denver Post & New York Times: no mention of anyone's being killed by a bomb

I have not yet heard of a single one of the deaths being attributed to a bomb. What is your source of information for your claim?

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 23, 1999.

At least, thank God, the numbers killed have been coming down......

On the news this morning, the DJ reeled off at least 15 very negative copycat-type behavior at 15 or so different schools across the country. Anybody else catch this?

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), April 23, 1999.

Pure Spam,

I must say, I stand in awe when I see your big brain go into action and spew out platitudes. I want to get this right, because I think I will have some bumper stickers made up. You are saying, People Don't Kill People, Guns Kill People. Is that correct? Terrific! In all fairness, I will run it by the NRA to get their approval. And I will credit it to you, Pure Spam. And then it's "run it up the flagpole to see who salutes." Bet you get a lot of 1 finger salutes.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), April 23, 1999.

To all:

There are valid arguments on both sides of the gun-control/Second Amendment debate. There seems to be no shortage of the "gun advocates" (not necessarily the best description) to argue their side, so I present some arguments from the other side.

I notice that no one has refuted or disputed any of my "anti-gun" (not necessarily the best description) arguments other than a claim that some of the students were killed by bomb, a claim for which I find no confirmation yet in the news sources I've consulted.

Suppose we take that one part, "What killed the 15 who died -- guns or bombs? Answer: guns." out of my preceding posting, pending full verification (I've seen 8 of the dead specifically, by name, reported as having died by gunshot, with no report of anyone dying from bomb explosion).

Can anyone refute any of the rest?

- - - -

Andy,

I notice that neither of your two postings after Jim the Window Washer's contains any attempt at refutation of my arguments or claims.

- - - -

Gordon,

>You are saying, People Don't Kill People, Guns Kill People. Is that correct?

No.

I'm saying that guns kill more effectively than any other readily available and easily usable weapon. Reread my previous posting carefully.

Of course people kill people. I've never denied it. Any attempt to portray me as having denied that is just another straw-man argument.

I know how to kill a person with no weapon but one's hand. I use the impersonal pronoun "one" here because I don't practice it, and the odds that I could successfully remember and execute the move in a real life-or-death situation are far, far less than one in a billion.

>Terrific!

Nice of you to wait for verification of your straw-man restatement of my views.

>In all fairness, I will run it by the NRA to get their approval.

Very fair of you to wait for verification of your straw-man restatement of my views.

>And I will credit it to you, Pure Spam.

Of course. Part of the straw-man tactic is to pretend that the statement one distorts/invents and attributes to one's rhetorical opponent actually originated with that opponent. After all, if you're going to be dishonest, why not go all the way?

>And then it's "run it up the flagpole to see who salutes." Bet you get a lot of 1 finger salutes.

Continuation of the straw-man theme. Gotta admit: you do push it, don't you, Gordon.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 23, 1999.

No Spam Please,

True they had and used guns.

It's also true that they had 20lb propane tanks hooked up as bombs. Should we ban propane tanks?

It's also true they had pipe bombs. Should we ban pipes?

You know what a bank robber does when he can't get a gun? He hands the teller a note saying "I have a bomb". Some bank robbers are actually bold enough to use CARS to make their getaway. Should we ban cars?

You know what robbers did in NYC did after they put up bullet-proof glass at token booths? They started pouring gasoline into the booths and threating to light it if they weren't given the money. Should we ban gasoline?

It's NOT the guns that kill. It is the person using it. If you take away guns you not only disarm LAW-ABIDING citizens but you do NOTHING to stop a motivated criminal. Period.

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), April 23, 1999.

No Spam,

In answer to your question: "What killed the 15 who died -- guns or bombs?"

I _personally_ heard that white haired police guy who's been in front of all cameras say "Some where killed by guns, some were killed by shrapnel from bombs, and some were killed by both".

Unless he's lying, you have your answer.

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), April 23, 1999.

To Spam.

There is no confirmation of cause of death, except the 7 to 9 you refered. One of the girls in critical condition was originally reported to be shot nine times in the torso and arm. Now they say, no, it is nine pieces of shrapnel. So, to answer your question, no conformation of death by bomb.

Mea Culpa. I reserve the right to be right upon further confirmation of death by bomb as this whole thing shakes out. I still will argue (as previously) they could have killed many more if they had put their worthless sawed-off shotguns down and bombed clusters of students all over the school.

One of the amazing things in this whole thing, and miraculous is that none of the injured in hospitals all over Denver have not died. Just amazing. Kudos to those surgeons and professional lifesavers at the hospitals!

-- Jim the Window Washer (Rational@man.com), April 23, 1999.

Biggest mass murder in U.S. (civilian, anyway) was at the Happy Land Dance Club in the Bronx. 123 people killed. Weapon? jerry-can of gasoline. I still would argue that police inaction contributed: kids died from shock because no armed adult went in and put a stop to it. "We'll just stand out here where it's safe...sure glad we got body armor and stuff...too bad those kids are dying in there, but we'll just stay out here where it's safe...hey, any lapsed inspection stickers we can ticket while we're waiting?" What's the point of having a gestapo if they DON'T TRY AND SAVE KIDS WHO ARE BEING SHOT? (I'm paraphrasing the demure Miss Albright)

-- Spidey (in@jam.com), April 23, 1999.

To Tech 32 Thanks

Yes, the white-haired man (Jeffco Sherriff spokesman) did say that some victims were killed by both bombs and guns, but I did't really consider that verification. That bozo is an idiot who didn't know what was going on. The national clips of him make him look a lot better than he really is if you watched the local coverage. I wouldn't be surprised if the police put him up there as a diversion for all the media as the situation was unraveling. Just my $.02 worth.

We will probably get verification of death by bomb by other sources if indeed it did happen, as I believe it did.

-- Jim the Window Washer (Rational@man.com), April 23, 1999.

Folks,

Let me make it clear that what I'm looking for are honest non-"straw man" type refutations of my arguments.

- - - -

TECH32,

>Should we ban propane tanks?

Very, very few people are murdered with propane tanks. I have specifically called for refutations of my "anti-gun" (not necessarily the best description) argument. We'll deal with propane later.

Why divert from guns to propane tanks, TECH32? Is that an implicit admission that you have no refutation for the "anti-gun" (standard disclaimer here) arguments I present?

>Should we ban pipes?

Repeat my preceding two paragraphs, substituting "pipe" for "propane" or "propane tank".

>You know what a bank robber does when he can't get a gun? He hands the teller a note saying "I have a bomb".

And not one teller has ever been killed by a note -- right?

>Some bank robbers are actually bold enough to use CARS to make their getaway. Should we ban cars?

Why divert from guns to cars, TECH32? Is that an implicit admission that you have no refutation for the "anti-gun" (standard disclaimer here) arguments I present?

>They started pouring gasoline into the booths and threating to light it if they weren't given the money. Should we ban gasoline?

Show me the figures on actual deaths using that method. How many, TECH32?

>It's NOT the guns that kill. It is the person using it.

Wrong. It is the bullets that kill.

>If you take away guns you not only disarm LAW-ABIDING citizens but you do NOTHING to stop a motivated criminal.

Finally, one semi-valid argument against gun control. Congratulations.

>Unless he's lying, you have your answer.

Why "lying"? Why not use the less-accusatory "mistaken"?

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 23, 1999.

banning guns is good,when martial law is declared,an armed population poses problems,Hitler knew it,gotta grab 'dose guns,ghandi must have known it or he wouldn't have said in his auto-biography..."of all the misdeeds of the British,history will look upon the act of depriving an entire nation of firearms as the blackest" liberals who have never been on the recieving end of violence naturaly think banning guns is a good idea,they've never been held helpless while there spouse/child is gang ass raped.wait for martial law,if the banks crash looting and raping will become soldiers pay.then they'll learn;if you have no firearm,you are subject to anyone who has.alas,how terrible is wisdom when it brings no profit to the wise.when millions have died in the cities of dysentery and diahreah because water treatment or power crashed how much will the bleeding hearts care that a few kids got blown away?fie!they left the world no poorer,but how much suffering will result from the propoganda miles gotten from the battle cries of "WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!"

-- zoobie (zoob@aol.com), April 23, 1999.

Meerkat.

You would do well to read and digest the following.

As a purely anthroplogical enquiry, what do you make of the premise?

"So often the debate over gun laws degenerates into this black and white confrontation. Fixed position v. fixed position. No shades of grey. No common ground. No communication.

And what does this mean? It means divid and rule, the classic method throughout human history of the few controlling the many.

It is time to start talking to each other and to end the abuse - on both sides. It is not one group or another who will lose their freedom to the global dictatorship if we fail to unite. It is all of us, Christian, Jew, Arab, Democrat, Republican, environmentalist, New Age, Old Age, pro-gun and anti-gun.

When freedom goes, it means the freedom of everyone. Not just the freedom of people we don't agree with. I think we need to conduct the campaign over guns in this light and from this perspective. It is not as simple as guns are bad, so ban them, and people who want guns must be violent, so ignore them.

It seems to me that we have become ensnared and diverted into the wrong debate. The argument has focused on guns. Are they good or bad? Should people be allowed to own them or should they be banned?

I can understand the views of both sides, but it is the wrong debate at the wrong time. Surely what we all need to focus on is...what is the motivation of those who wish to take guns out of circulation now?

If we get sucked into the guns are good or bad debate, the real reason behind current events will be lost. This is precisely what the Elite wish to happen, indeed are trying to make happen.

Firstly, it is quite obvious as I travel and speak in many countries that the attempt to disarm the population is a global phenomenon. In the UK, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and so on, I find the same scenario of problem - reaction - solution.

Someone goes crazy with a gun and many people are killed or maimed. There is a media-political outcry over guns in that country, and the outraged and manipulated public demand what they are conditioned to demand - the banning of guns in society.

In the UK we have had the horrors of Hungerford and Dunblane; in Australia there was the Port Arthur massacre; and similar incidents have happened in New Zealand and, of course, many times in the United States.

The reaction is the same every time: Ban guns.

Making guns against the law will not stop violent people from getting hold of them. The world is awash with organisations (mostly government supported) which supply weapons illegally to entire countries, never mind individuals. The gun used in Port Arthur was one that had been previously handed over to the police by its owner! So how did the killer get hold of it?

What's more, the victims of such tragedies are manipulated to support the game plan. What a grotesque sight it is to see the families of dead childre, going through their unspeakable and unimaginable grief, being used to front the anti-gun campaings of those responsible for orchestrating the very horrors in the first place. It is also interesting to note that again and again the gunmen involved have the classic traits of a mind-controlled robot, be it Thomas Hamilton in Dunblane or Martin Bryant in Port Arthur. Programming someone to do this, given the scale and sophistication of Elite mind-control projects, is very easy.

Another thing the ban-guns-lobby miss, is that while the pressure increases to take guns away from the public, the police and "security" services are armed tooan ever greater extent all over the world. Britain once prided itself on its unarmed police force, but no longer.

Does anyone really believe it is a conincidence that at the same time the public is being disarmed, those who control the public are getting access to greater and more powerful weaponry? Come on, let's wake up here.

Quite clearly it is all being co-ordinated to some common global goal, and as the evidence is overwhelming that (a) we are looking at a plan for total global control, and (b) that some sort of military coup against the "dissidents" is part of that plan, it is pretty obvious what the game is.

Coups against unarmed populations are rather more straightforward than coups against people with weapons to defend themselves.

And before anyone accuses me of supporting violence and being "pro- gun," let me be absolutely honest about my own position. I would not pull a trigger to save my life. I would rather die standing up for peace than live by adding to the violence. But many people would use guns to defend themselves and those behind the New World Order know that. Hence the attempts to disarm them.

I am not pro-gun, but I am pro-freedom. And if those who support the disarming of the population get caught in the narrow debate and miss the big picture and context in whch it is happening, they and their children will live to deeply regret this lack of vision and foresight.

In the same way, it is vital that those campaigning to keep guns in circulation understand that the overwhelming majority of those who oppose them are genuine, decent, people who simply wish to live in a violence-free world. Both sides need to understand each other. It's time to talk.

As I explain in my books, the world is controlled by a pyramid structure. The few at the top manipulate, divide and misinform those below them. If the base of the pyramid unites, the peak is in serious trouble because the peak is only at the tope because the base is holding it up there.

This is why dividing and therefore ruling the population has always been fundamental to human control in every socierty, era and culture.

It is time for all of us to unite behind the one value we all agree on. The right to be free. The question of gun control is a good place to start.

Let us stop talking to ourselves and start talking to those who disagree with us. Only then will be the base of understanding expand into all areas of society.

No matter what you think, where you come from, what you have done, or what colour your pigmentation, your freedom, or what is left of it, is being threatened by a highly imbalanced and cynical Elite who wish to turn Planet Earth into a global prison cell.

They can only do that if we are divided among ourselves and if we ignore what is happening around us. Never in known human history has it been more obvious that we need to unite behind what we agree on instead of being divided by focussing on what we do not.

We are in this together. And we will get out of it together - or not at all."

David Icke web page.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 23, 1999.

No Spam,

Now you're dodging. Why ban guns if they won't stop crime?

What, you think that some guy who comes home to find his wife in bed with another man is going to say "Darn! I want kill that bastard but I don't have a gun. Oh well..." Hell no. He's going get a knife or a baseball bat or some other lethal tool and stab/beat the guy to death. And in answer to your question: >They started pouring gasoline into the booths and threating to light it if they weren't given the money. Should we ban gasoline?

>>Show me the figures on actual deaths using that method. How many, TECH32?

I don't know how many but I _DO_ recall reading actual reports in the newspaper where clerks (more than 1) had been burned to death. Real actual deaths.

Never forget that our country is FILLED with generation after generation of refugees from all over the world who know all too well what happens when large groups of people are unable to defend themselves.

Care to become a refugee youself?

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOSPAM.COM), April 23, 1999.

Andy,

This has been an excellent thread you started. It has drawn a lot of good people in to share their thoughts. Heck, I even think ole Pure Spam has enjoyed the mental exercise. Thanks again.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), April 23, 1999.

TECH32,

>Now you're dodging.

Another straw-man. What did I dodge? Nothing. I addressed all the points you raised in your preceding two postings about guns. My refusal to be diverted by your comments on propane and pipes does not constitute dodging, when the subject of my preceding postings was clearly and unmistakeably _guns_. The characteristics of guns that are related to their effectiveness for murder do not apply well to pipes or propane tanks.

>Why ban guns if they won't stop crime?

Not quite sure how to parse that sentence. It could be a question about banning non-crime-stopping guns (leaving only crime-stopping guns), but I _don't_ think that's what you meant.

Assuming the seemingly most likely meaning: Why ban guns if such a ban won't stop crime?

Oh, but it (an _effective_ ban - see below) will definitely stop lots of murders committed in situations where substituting another weapon would result in a non-death, all else being equal. Example: where the assailant is 10 or more feet away, few other weapons (e.g., not knives, clubs) would be as likely to succeed in killing at the same effectiveness (bows-and-arrows have slower fire rates, are not as concealable, and take more strength and skill to fire).

In self-defense situations, not all the characteristics that lead to an effective murder weapon apply. A shotgun is good for defense (as well as being a legitimate game-hunting weapon); I don't advocate banning those.

As for "ban": changing our situation in which many millions of good-for-murder-but-not-game-hunting guns are already in circulation would take a long time after manufacture of such weapons ceased. I know it can't happen overnight. Neither can nuclear disarmament. But one has to start taking steps in order to get somewhere in either multi-generational situation.

>What, you think that some guy who comes home to find his wife in bed with another man is going to say "Darn! I want kill that bastard but I don't have a gun. Oh well..." Hell no. He's going get a knife or a baseball bat or some other lethal tool and stab/beat the guy to death.

So? I've never ever claimed that a gun ban would prevent all killings. But it sure would lower the rate -- that's progress in my book.

>>>Show me the figures on actual deaths using that method. How many, TECH32?

>I don't know how many but I _DO_ recall reading actual reports in the newspaper where clerks (more than 1) had been burned to death. Real actual deaths.

Okay, there were some deaths by gasoline. A few. Very few, compared to deaths by gun. As I've said before, _lowering the murder rate_ is a desirable goal. Criticism that it isn't perfection is straw-mannish.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 23, 1999.

Andy,

You know my opinion of Icke; I've posted it multiple times.

When he shows me that he cares about correcting a blatant factual error after having been informed about it four times (I sent another note recently), I may figure it's worth my time to read his stuff. Until then, why should I think what he writes is connected to reality? (Aliens ...)

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 23, 1999.

I do believe that in Oklahoma City, the cause of death was a bomb- not guns. More people were killed by a bomb than one man could likely have done with a gun. Do we ban Ryder rental trucks because that was the weapon of choice??

It's just a knee jerk response that covers up our unwillingness to really look at who we are in this society and what a violent and angry nation we have become.

-- anita (hillsidefarm@drbs.com), April 23, 1999.

anita (hillsidefarm@drbs.com),

>I do believe that in Oklahoma City, the cause of death was a bomb- not guns. More people were killed by a bomb than one man could likely have done with a gun.

Okay. One example down, 9,999 to go. There are lots and lots more guns than bombs.

>Do we ban Ryder rental trucks because that was the weapon of choice??

I presume you meant to write "bomb ingredients" instead of "Ryder rental trucks".

>It's just a knee jerk response that covers up

Lots of knee jerk responses going around. But I'm looking for sound refutations of the arguments I presented.

>our unwillingness to really look at who we are in this society and what a violent and angry nation we have become.

Yes. If there were not this attitude that violence can be a pure and cleansing solution, we would have many fewer violent crimes, I think. Less need to defend oneself against others' guns, and so on.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 24, 1999.

Folks:

What do you think about the following argument?

The murder-by-guns rate is the price we pay for Second Amendment protection from tyranny. It's a trade-off.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 24, 1999.

Spam, I agree and this is what it comes down to.

But I still think this is myopic in light of this century's history. The Armenian genocide, Cambodian example, Hitler' actions, and even more modern, the Rwandan genocide all show conclusively, there is more death in the end if the civilian population is at the mercy of their government. Americans are not as dumb as a lot of people on this forum think. They will not allow their weapons to be simply taken. They may be willing to trade them in an extreme desperate situation (Y2k), but they won't just give them up. That's why Clinton won't write an EO to ban all handguns, or collect "assault" weapon, even using Columbine High as emotional fuel.

More guns less crime. Civilian crime or Government crime.

-- Jim the Window Washer (rational@man.com), April 24, 1999.

Question. Why doesn't this happen in Switzerland where every male between 20 and 50 keeps a military ( full auto assault rifle ) at home?

Why didn't this happen 100 years ago when almost every rural family had at least one weapon, usually a rifle at home, a far higher percentage of the popuation then today?

Is it the guns, or is it us, and how we DON'T raise our children. Just wondering....

-- kozak (kozak@formerusaf.guv), April 24, 1999.

bans won't work,if I can buy books on how to manufacture sub-machine guns,gun powder,shell caseings and primers,bans ultimately won't work.books on all the above are available from loomponics and paladin press,having read and retained said info,if I live the information lives.

"Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Ben Franklin)

-- zoobie (zoob@aol.com), April 24, 1999.