Klinton--- CNN Right Now---Here go our Guns !!!

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Klinton is on the Clinton News Network right now... what a communist !! This guy is one amazing psycopathic wanker... SCREW THE CONSTITUTION !!!

-- WebRNot (webrnot@ncap13k.com), April 27, 1999


Yes its just awful that he is suggesting that we run background checks on people that want to purchase dynamite. WebRNot, you are an idiot.

-- (_*_) (@ .), April 27, 1999.

Either we need to take guns (and explosives, gasoline, knives) away from people, or return to the deeply ingrained morals which we had in the past when we had as many guns as now.

Since the queers, punks, gangs, socialists, and criminals don't want morality, I guess elimination of deadly weapons is the only practical way to reduce the death-count in the future.

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous99.xxx), April 27, 1999.

I don't know whether to cry or puke... Clinton jumps all over the opportunity to stand on his bully pulpit (built on the lives of 12 inncocent students) and uses this emotional time to further his own socialistic, non-constitutional agenda for more abusive governmental control.

-- WebRNot (webrnot@ncap13k.com), April 27, 1999.

I don't see how more tougher hand gun laws would have prevented these kids in Co. from cutting off the barrells of their shot guns and making those 60+ pipe bombs. A MOM AND DAD in every home and a chicken in every pot!

-- Johnny (jljtm@bellsouth.net), April 27, 1999.

Don't forget to do a background check on people purchasing kitchen matches - that was the explosive used for the pipe-bombs by those young men (17 & 18 are NOT kids) in Colorado.

Yep, clamping down on explosives would certainly have helped.

As usual- the gov wants to look like it's DOING SOMETHING, so innocents are made to pay.

Not for long.

Jolly mad.

-- Jollyprez (jolly@prez.com), April 27, 1999.

* and Anon99:

You are idiots.

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

Some things deserve repeating UNTIL THEY SINK IN. Obviously the above quote was not / has not been repeated OFTEN ENOUGH, or this country would not be in the sorry state it is.

For those like * and Anon, who wouldn't recognize a concept if it bit them on the ass, above is a concept. Now to a specific:

Grey Davis, Governor of California, like Klinton, is also so excited that he's got an "incident" to work that his pants are wet. These fascist a-holes have their (legislation) bills already written and ready to go. So when some screwed up bozo(s) go off and shoot up a bunch of people, they're ready to go the next week with the bills.

I can see Klinton, Davis and all the rest of the NWOrderlies jumping up and down with glee, shouting "Yes, Yes, more dead, go for it!", slapping hands and "high-fiving" it.

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

Some things deserve repeating UNTIL THEY SINK IN.

-- A (A@AisA.com), April 27, 1999.

Golly, what we really need is a 15 day waiting period/permit on homicides, in triplicate of course, one copy to the city/county, one copy to the state, and one copy to the federal govt. The permit must be validated by all three govts. Wouldn't that stop this type of stuff?

How about an age/bomb weight restriction? If you are only 23 years old your bomb can't weigh more than 23 pounds including casing, wire, battery (if needed), etc.

Or we could simplify this whole thing. Make it illegal to kill people. In other word abandon the failed policy of crimes against the state, and reinstitute the forgotten concept of crimes against the person. How about that for an idea? I mean a law with some teeth in it too. None of this 50 years in prison, but out in 7 becuase of good behavior. Maybe even something so radical as executing the murderer? I know this sounds a lot like the radical concept of matching the punishment to fit the crime, but shuckie whiz we just gotta do sumthin'. Besides, I think one time I woke up in history class and the teacher was talking about anceint ideas like this.

-- Little Kenny Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), April 27, 1999.

"Some things deserve repeating UNTIL THEY SINK IN. "

Very powerful indeed. Sadly the mass-media has more money to repeat their message. Their message, here, is "you can do anything you want, just get rid of those nasty guns".

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous99.xxx), April 27, 1999.

Or how about another answer (stolen from comp.software.year-2000):

http://www.remarq.com/transcr ipt.asp?group=comp%2Esoftware%2Eyear%2D2000&threadNum=50084049&update= 2121

It seems with all the debate surrounding gun control and shootings at schools, all parties have overlooked an obvious solution: Arm The Children (ATC)

If all children were armed, then events such as those in Littleton would not occur because all the kids could shoot back.

Now teachers should also take part in this process. I would suggest that (in order to command respect and keep control over the class) they wear body armor and carry automatic weapons, while the children should be limited to hand guns and no body armor.

Also, under the ATC program, school principles office would be moved to a bunker, and he/she would be provided with an armored vehicle with some offensive capacity, like a Bradley fighting vehicle.

School district offices should each have a tank brigade and "rapid reaction force" to quell any insurrections, while the State Education Board should command a small air force, including a few Blackhawk helicopters and A-10 Warthogs to provide air support.

At the national level, country-wide education standards could be enforced with a small number of medium-range, low yield nuclear weapons.

And there, the problem of school violence is solved!

-- ??? (getyourguns@here.com), April 27, 1999.

Making it harder for competent citizens to buy guns will not solve any problems, only create more problems in the future. Blaming guns for the problems of our society is a Band-Aid. Let us not forget the past.

"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D-Minnesota)

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." Mahatma Ghandi

"...to disarm the people (is) the best and most effective way to enslave them..." George Mason

"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence." Charles A. Beard

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" Noah Webster, 1888

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."

Heinrich Himmler

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non ["something essential" lit. "without which not"] for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police." --Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938

"There are going to be situations where people are going to go without assistance. That's just the facts of life." --LA Chief of Police, Gates.

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits. ... and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." St. George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court 1803

"We, the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts -- not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution." Abraham Lincoln

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficient. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

"It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." Justice Robert H. Jackson

"Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out just because I might yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater." Peter Venetoklis

"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans ...... And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities." Bill Clinton, 3-22-94

-- Greenthumb G.I. (greenthumb@i.g.i), April 27, 1999.

And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom.

I love this quote ! Even in stating his OWN PERSONAL beliefs he has to weasel and waffle and evade responsibility ! "A lot of people" indeed !

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), April 27, 1999.


Nice collection, thanks.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), April 27, 1999.

Got the above at http://www.valkyriearms.com/quotes.htm they have lots, lots more enjoy.

-- Greenthumb G.I. (greenthumb@i.g.i), April 27, 1999.

Why is it that anytime someone mentions even some minor change to how guns are made available to the public, the NRA-types fly into their standard hysterical rhetoric about Nazi Germany and disarming the public yadda yadda yadda. Before I go further, I think Clinton is the biggest joke to ever sit in the White House so this is in no way an endorsement of him. But can anyone give a rational, non-emotional answer to why anything he proposed is that big of a deal to legally owning a gun for hunting or protection? Is waiting a few days that much trouble? Is not allowing convicted felons (and others who have already proven themselves to be menaces to society) to own a firearm really a bad thing?

The problem, as I see it, is that everyone talks about their "rights" but they ignore the issue of "responsibility". Right now, responsibility is being shirked from gun manufacturers, to gun distributors, and to parents when children can use firearms which were purchased within the existing legal confines to massacre 13 people.

I've read the posts above but they all pretty much say the same thing -- don't let the government take our guns. Except for a few extremists, I have never heard anyone call for anything even close to a gun ban and there was certainly not anything in Clinton's remarks today that could be interpreted as such. Why is there no gray area on this issue to the majority of gunowners, i.e. any law which deals with how guns may be obtained in any way is automatically bad?

-- NoRhetoricPlease (just@curious.com), April 27, 1999.

I hope Clinton does try to take the guns. It will be the straw that breaks the camels back. Our government is out of control. We are over due for another revolution in this country.

-- enough (these@ss.holes), April 27, 1999.

To No Rhetoric Please,

I think I might have an answer for you, Or at least something to think about.

Were the guns registered in the young mens name that killed all of the innocent kids in CO? My best guess is NO. They were probably registered in thier parents name.

Most of the time a "criminal" or someone with a prison record wants a gun they dont go to Wal-mart. They go to one of thier buddies who has a trunk load of stolen/non-traceable guns.

That is why people like me get a little upset when people want to make it harder to buy a gun. If it really worked I would say "great", but it doesnt work!! The only people these types of laws affect is law abiding people like me. Not criminals or the mental unstable.

Just my thought on the subject. Bulldog

-- bulldog (sniffin@around.com), April 27, 1999.

No Rhetoric Please:

Without emotion and rancor:

When the LA riots ocurred, Chuck Heston's friends who tried to buy a shotgun to protect their home came to him for help. They received the help one would expect, since these prticular friends had been INSTRUMENTAL in passing Calif's 5 day waiting period. He suggested that they might have just gotten a lesson in civics and the reason for the constitution.

Thus, someone with a legitimate concern and a legitimate need, was successfully prevented from buying a gun IN A TIMELY FASHION. Chuck doesn't report in his autobiography whether there were problems from this lesson or not.

Chuck the Night Driver

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), April 27, 1999.

The "standard hysterical rhetoric about Nazi Germany" is one of the best examples of what can happen to a society disarmed by their government. This culture is ignoring past history. The price of having freedom is what happened in Colorado. We will have a better society in the long run if the people stay armed. This is not an issue of hunting, the constitution is about defending your lively hood from all governments and powers that be. It may not be soon but the future has many "Nazi Germanys in store for us. People armed control their government. Remember you will be held accountable for the actions of your government in the end. I just can't see the Kosovo mess happing if the population was armed. I rather suffer the prince of freedom than be caught in a Kosovo situation. Better to be one of the 1000's killed by gun violence then lose 20,000,000+ lives because of a "Nazi Germany".

This relates to this group because even if there's .0001% chance that Y2K will be violent, I as many others may like the idea of protecting our lively hood from the powers that be. There are other ways to deal with the sickness of this society with out infringing on the right of people to be armed. You may or may not own a gun, but the people do keep them are the ones watching over everyone's freedom. Better to die free than live enslaved. History repeats itself. Look at different governments. How long do governments last? Pretty pompous of us to think "Were different, this government will last for a 1000 years". It's going to end someday, hope the people have the power to shape the new one.

If you want the right to have a firearm for Y2K I would keep a close eye on gun control issues.

-- Greenthumb G.I. (greenthumb@i.g.i), April 27, 1999.

You can do something. You can join the NRA; support them financially and e-mail your congressmen now.

-- Gunlover (gunlover@freedom.com), April 27, 1999.

Cars kill more people than guns. Think about all the high school kids killed by cars last year. Let's get rid of cars or raise the driving age to 21? Five day waiting periods, harder testing, background checks..... When will the taking of freedoms stop?

-- Bill (y2khippo@yahoo.com), April 28, 1999.

I think it's time for a reality check here. There are estimated to be over two hundred million pivately owned firearms in this country. Those weapons have a useable lifetime of around a hundred years on average. I don't know about you but I'm not turning my guns in no matter what kind of stinking unconstitutional law they pass. I'd bet a pretty penny that far more than half of all the other gun owners wouldn't either. And that half of gun owners who would refuse own far more than half the guns because that's just the kind of son of a bitches we are. I don't know ANY gun nuts who own just one gun. More like ten or fifteen and thousands of rounds of ammo to go with them. the goobermint isn't completely idiotic. They know that guns can never be succesfully outlawed in this country. They know that any attempt at door to door confiscation is going to result in instant civil war, and Washington will be burned to the ground. They know that liberal pansies will vote for them if they make a lot of noise and attempt to pass laws but they also know just how far they can go, and they have almost reached that point. As far as I'm concerned none of the gun control laws that have ever been passed are constitutional. Not one. The second amendment is very clear on the point that the people shall have the right to keep and bear arms so that they shall be able to defend against foreign invaders and domestic government run amok. Not guns, ARMS. The militia is expected to appear if called bearing arms of the type and kind currently in use by the armed forces. The militia consist of every able bodied male in this country between the ages of eighteen and 50 I think. If I am not mistaken the types of arms in use by our military are all either full automatic or selective fire with full auto capability. Therefore every man in this country is legally obligated under the constitution of the United States to posess a weapon capable of full automatic fire. Further, since the Illegal standing army the government maintains in direct violation of the constitution also uses Tanks, Jet fighters, bombers, missiles, poisonous gasses, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons the constitution clearly states we must have equal arms as citizens. The constitution is VERY clear on this point. At no time is the government to maintain a standing army with superior firepower to the citizens it represents. That sounds pretty hysterical I know, but if any of you watched what went on at Waco, you realize it is still a valid argument. While the Branch Davidians were heavily armed with semi-automatic weapons they were absolutely defenseless when the government brought in tanks and helicopters. And I guarantee you if they had the weapons to take out those tanks and helicopters the government would have brought in B- 52's and carpet bombed that place into a moonscape. And if they had the missiles to take out those B-52's the government would have nuked them. Somewhere back around the time of world war one governments became obsolete. With the invention of nuclear weapons they became obscenely obsolete. I'll tell you a little secret too, the governments know it. They know their era is over and they pass law after law, bind the shackles tighter and tighter, take away freedom bit by bit in their ongoing effort to hold that power over the people. There can be only one end to this road we are following. the genies of nuclear and biologicval weapons are forever out of their bottles and it is only a matter of time before these obsolete governments destroy the planet in one last desperate attempt to hold onto power.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), April 28, 1999.

I feel that everyone should own guns. The problem is liberal teachings, such as situation ethics, which state "there is no right or wrong, and you can do whatever you want." I saw people taught this way and become criminals because of it. WE NEED GOD BACK IN THE CLASSROOM, THE GOVERNMENT AND IN PUBLIC. It was CHRISTIAN valuse that this nation was founded upon. In the old days, before I was around, in school the prayer was for God to bless us. GOD raised America as high as it is, and it was through HIS blessings that we became powerful. The shootings in Littleton are a sign of godlessness. We need to go back to God, and SOON, and we need to restore the TRUE constitution.

-- Crono (Crono@timesend.com), April 28, 1999.

Nikoli: You da man!

-- A (A@AisA.com), April 28, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ