Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Oklahoma City............Liberal..Orgasm!!!!!!!!
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 17:55:57 GMT

In article <stratosEstAEK.E6C@netcom.com>, Steve Fischer
<stratos@netcom.com> wrote:
>      The problem with using that "repressive government" argument is
> that virtually no one, including me, thinks the US government *IS*
> anything even approaching repressive.

Depends on your definition of "repressive," of course.  And the point
is not to throw off the yoke of the repressors, but to prevent having
to do so in the first place.  The US is pretty well free right now;
what about 25, 50, 100 years from now?  The question is *not*, "Do we
have it good enough?" but "How do we hold on to what we've got, or
even improve on it?"

> It's an insult to those who died under truly repressive governments
> (Cambodia, China, Stalininst Russia, Ghana under Idi Amin, etc) to
> make such comparisons.

It sure would be, if anyone were doing such a silly thing.  I have yet
to hear or read of anyone making such comparisons (not counting
alarmist future projections, which are anyone's guess anyway).

And is it really useful to bring up the very worst episodes of human
history to point out, "Unless it's *this* bad, you have no cause for
complaint"?  I don't think that, even 100 years from now, the US could
become 1970's Cambodia, but could it become Cuba, or South Korea, or
Kenya?  Well, I'd prefer that it not.  An armed population is the best
insurance against such an occurrence.

Is it an "insult" to those who died in the Hindenberg, or in Dresden
and Hiroshima, that I keep smoke detectors in my house?

BTW, Amin was the dictator who brutalized *Uganda*, not Ghana.  (And
what, exactly was the "disaster of epic proportions" that brought him
to power?)

>      It would take a disaster of epic proportion to create the kind
> of instability that would lead to repressive martial law and its
> subsequent curtailment of civil liberties.

1. Disasters of epic proportions *do* occur, now and then.  Should
that grim day ever come to America, I'd rather not follow it up with
1,000 years of additional man-made misery, thanks.

2. You have it exactly backwards -- "curtailment" of civil rights
(always "reasonable" and "justified," don't you know) generally comes
first, *then* the crackdown of martial law or its equivalent.

3. One doesn't have to see a storm trooper under every bed in order to
be concerned about things like:

  a. The increasing tendency toward lawlessness and viciousness on the
     part of federal (and other) law enforcement.

  b. The decrease in accountability for lawmakers, the rich and other
     "elite," and what this does to the credibility of our entire
     system of government.

  c. The exploitation of tragic and monstrous crimes, both real (OK
     city) and manufactured (TWA 800) in order to increase the
     authority of government at the expense of civil liberties (did
     your parents have to show their papers to travel within the
     borders of the United States, when they were young?) and to
     discredit anyone who would stand in the way of these expansions,
     or otherwise oppose the ruling party.

  d. The attempts-by-stealth to "chill" the development of new
     technologies that would by their nature shift the balance of
     power in favor of individuals and against central authority --
     e.g., the CDA and the Internet, "export restrictions" on
     encryption, foot-dragging on digital e-cash standards, etc.
--
 From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin  |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_    Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  for PGP public    |+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /         key information.  |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Oklahoma City............Liberal..Orgasm!!!!!!!!
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 18:07:02 GMT

In article <stratosEt28w5.ErK@netcom.com>, Steve Fischer
<stratos@netcom.com> wrote:
>      Times have changed.  Political parties used to be stronger.
> Television, the Internet, etc have changed all that.  Individuals
> have learned to raise money independent of the party, and thus
> are beholden directly to their contributors.  This makes party
> coehesion and policy formation less effective.

I don't know about TV, but the government's response to the Internet
and to individual contribution to political dialogue has been, shall
we say, less than enthusiastic.  The government's attacks on the
Internet are pretty obvious, and the current frothing over "campaign
finance reform" is a transparent attempt to lock out *anyone* not
approved by the party bosses from buying ad space for their pet
issues.
--
 From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin  |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_    Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  for PGP public    |+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /         key information.  |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------