Re: Stop the presses -- Anti-terrorism bill not that bad

[JonWienk@ix.netcom.com]

On Mon, 05 Aug 96, hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote:
>The shells are removed sometime or other. Nothing is a 100% solution
>but anything that gives the criminal an extra thing to worry about 
>improves the chances that a mistake is made.
>
>Many people go to jail because of fingerprints on shell cases.

If the shell cases are NOT left at the crime scene, there is NO link between 
them and the crime. You are suffering from cranio-rectal inversion.

>I doubt that more than 32 bits of info will be required. Thats not 
>that difficult to imprint.
[snip]
>Not a problem, that type of machinery is a standard type of 
>industrial machine. Might be expensive to adapt the lines but 
>I doubt it.

That doesn't address the fact that (1) there are billions of unstamped shell 
casing extant, (2) stamping the side of a case will weaken it and be a 
significant safety hazard, (3) stamps in the head of the case can be 
filed/scraped off, (4) cases not left at the crime scene have no value as 
evidence, regardless of any serial stamps, extractor marks, etc. Even if you can 
prove a shell was fired in a particular gun, if there is no link between that 
gun and the crime, the "evidence" is worthless. You are suffering from 
cranio-rectal inversion.

>Not an issue. A person may have an excuse that explains why
>the blood is in his car or his fingerprints are on the knife but
>a conviction depends on more than one piece of evidence. If 
>there is information that gives the police a lead it is 
>usefull.

See above. You are suffering from cranio-rectal inversion.

>At present the police are investigating the purchase of white 
>powder - checking each purchaser out who fits the Olympic
>bomber profile. That is a lot of work for a much weaker lead.

That's BLACK powder, stupid! Also, profiling a bomber requires more than one 
crime. A profile is a psychological analysis of the patterns in a criminal's 
handiwork, and patterns cannot be clearly deliniated with a single crime.

>If a person says that they fired at a range then you have 
>narrowed the search scope to the guys at the range.

Huh? Smoke another one, Beavis!

>Not a problem, thats an opportunity. I build very large, very
>high reliability computer systems. I can build machines that
>deal with several million transactions a day for less than a 
>million and run them for less than a quarter million a year. That
>is cheap when one considers the cost of investigation saved.

Yeah, and lets make it mandatory for everyone to accept subcutaneous transponder 
implants monitored by your system. Can anyone say BIG Brother? Regardless of the 
system, some poor schmuck (or an army of them) is going to have to do the data 
entry work for your computer, or it is worthless. Remember the GIGO concept?

>Making that argument defeats your case. Irespective of the framers
>of the constitution nobody in Congress or the Administration believes
>that you have a right to take up arms against the government. In
>fact they are scared of the militia movement and the NRA. Every time
>you make that argument you make it harder for people to accept your
>case. 

The fact that the current government despises the intent of the people who wrote 
the Constitution and tries to circumvent and negate it to the maximum extent 
possible is the root of much of the disillusionment with and distrust of 
government in America today.

>Its like hearing a Marxist spout stuff from Capital to support a
>civil liberties. Regardless of wether the content makes sense the
>form of the argument is a complete turn off. 
>
>I used to side with HCI before I started talking to the 
>talk.politics.guns people. That convinced me that they were a threat
>to the security of the country - even before McVeigh sent me a
>mail defending his 2nd ammendment rights that looked very 
>much like yours. Regardless of whether he is guilty or not I
>still regard him and those that hold his views to be as 
>serious a threat to the USA as the Red Army Faction were in
>Germany, or the Red Brigades in Italy or the IRA in the UK.

Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than Tim McVeigh's guns.

>If people carelessly justify terrorism they are fueling that
>fire. Up until now the US has not had a serious terrorist 
>problem. If terrorism becomes widespread then don't imagine
>the constitution will be a protection. Thomas and Reinquist 
>are not going to stop measures to "protect the nation" even
>if like the WWII internement of Japaneese nationals they are in
>gross violation of the constitution. 
>
>If you think the wiretap bill is bad think on this, all guns
>of all types banned except where held by special license.
>Checkpoints at major road intersections. Stop and search
>patrols in city centers and the army on the street. Its not
>at all far fetched, the UKgovt took less than a year to 
>introduce such measures in Northern Ireland. Constitution or
>not, don't expect that the US Congress won't make a similar 
>response.

See my sigfile. These are shining examples illustrating why an armed populace is 
critical to freedom, even if some people do misuse firearms. I would rather be 
armed and take my chances against a crackhead looking for someone to mug than be 
disarmed and take my chances against government thugs who have discovered that 
they can act against the populace with impunity.

Jonathan Wienke

"1935 will go down in history! For the first time a civilized nation has full 
gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the 
world will follow our lead in the future!"
--Adolf Hitler

"46.  The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, 
transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. ...Consider the 
following statement:  I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist 
confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government."
--The 29 Palms Combat Arms Survey  
http://www.ksfo560.com/Personalities/Palms.htm

1935 Germany = 1996 U.S.?

Key fingerprint =  30 F9 85 7F D2 75 4B C6  BC 79 87 3D 99 21 50 CB