Steve Asher wrote to Rene Laederach:

SA>  RL> As usual. Taking guns away from people makes them safer, limiting
SA>  RL> vehicles to drive 120 km/h on Swiss motorways via modifying the
SA>  RL> engine electronics will lower the accident rate and so on...I call
SA>  RL> that a nanny government. 
SA> 
SA> I call that archaic. A true nanny government will leave the illusion
SA> of freedom - keep the guns, but undergo background checks to own them
SA> or purchase ammunition, fit biometric safety locks on them, set up
SA> registries of spent bullets & casings; fit GPS systems to all vehicles
SA> to automatically generate road usage tolls, speed fines, demerit points,
SA> revocation of licence etc, together with an audit trail of where the
SA> vehicles are at any given time. Naturally, biometric interlocks will
SA> be needed to access and start motor vehicles, to "prevent"
theft &
SA> use in subsequent crimes - ram raids, hold-ups etc.

Another way to do it. But since it's quite difficult to keep track of 
millions
of guns (just look at Canada and their gun registration failure), it's far
easier to ban them. And also, with hysterical newscasts, you can sure make 
the
sheeple snitch on their neighbor who kept a single-barrel 12-gauge behind the
door.

SA>  RL> With 9/11, I'm slowly asking myself "Cui Bono?" - who drew
SA>  RL> advantages? The islamic terrorists?
SA> 
SA> I don't think so. While we may never know who the architect of
"9/11"
SA> was, the beneficiaries seem to be those intent on entering a never
SA> ending war on terror, at the expense of personal liberty.

I don't think it was directly the US gov't who orchestrated 9/11 but it's not
unlikely they let it through for the reasons described above.

SA>  RL> They should rather use some heavy-handed measures to slim down the
SA>  RL> public expenses a lot.
SA> 
SA> Have you ever seen that happen? (Apart from in election propaganda)

Not yet. Maybe a few bullets would make it happen, though.



-- 
email: mussi{at}snoop.alphanet.ch | "If you're taking flak,
Fidonet: 2:301/133             | you're above the target."


--- MBSE BBS v0.36.00 (Linux-i386)