HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Yet further tripe from Richard Reeves
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:10:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.130250.22850@ncsu.edu>, hes@unity.ncsu.edu
(Henry E. Schaffer) writes:

> In article <1992Oct5.024530.16940@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu
> (Charles Scripter) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep28.235318.43429@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>,
> >conley@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
> > ...
> >> In The American Prospect, Bogus wrestles with a paradox: Polls
> >> indicate that as many as 95% of Americans favor strictor gun control -

Interesting; I didn't notice this before...  How many Americans are
there?  (note that this includes Citizens of Canada, US, and all countries
of Central and South America).  This statistic means something completely
different if you poll persons other than US Citizens.

> >Obviously another Bogus statistic...

*Sigh*  You missed my humor... It is *obviously* a Bogus statistic, and
may also be a bogus statistic.  ;-)

>   I think that *all* of us (criminals excepted :-) are in favor of
> keeping guns away from violent criminals.  Since this is not done

Agreed.

> well (if at all) today, it is fair to say that doing this would be
> "stricter gun control" than we now have.

I prefer stricter CRIMINAL CONTROL.  Obviously gun control has not
cured the problem, so let's attack the source of the problem....
An inaminate object *cannot* be the source of a _social_ problem!

>   While there are important concerns about how such "stricter gun
> control" would affect everyone else, these concerns aren't discussed

We'll just have to inform them that the laws are not working.  Most
people are calling for "more restrictions", and then mention restrictions
that already exist...

> in the usual poll question.  So I find it quite reasonable that
> 95% or more of the American public would answer "Yes" to a question
> such as, "Do you favor stricter gun controls which would diminish
> the access of violent criminals to guns?"  I also think that the
> typical person would assume that "everything else being equal"
> is implicitly part of the question.

And who you question...  ;-)

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hes@ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: My response to newspaper bias - Part I
Originator: hes@sparcler.cc.ncsu.edu
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 23:30:26 GMT

  After several attempts to write a short (<300 word) response to
the material I discussed before, I finally decided to write two letters
to the Editor.  1) A short one which might be published and which 
wouldn't explore the topic, and 2) A long one which discusses several
aspects of the articles and cartoon and which gives extra information,
and which would not meet the criteria for publication.

  Here's the first one:

	Does anybody read the corrections which the News & Observer tucks 
away inside the newspaper?  When misinformation is in the headline of an 
article on the front page of a section, I've always wondered how visible is 
the correction.  Now I know that corrections are hidden well enough that 
even the Editors don't notice them!

	The headline on the front page of the section B of the News & 
Observer on September 26 said "Automatic weapons are used in shootout".  
After reading the article I wondered about the correctness of the headline 
because at least one of the guns described was clearly not an automatic 
weapon.  The next day, in the middle of an article on page 3 of the section B, 
there was a correction, "The [guns described in the previous day's article] 
are not automatic weapons as the News & Observer reported Friday."

	The Sunday editorial page cartoon showed Superman dead in a Raleigh 
alley with a newspaper headline, "AUTOMATIC WEAPONS PROLIFERATE IN 
RALEIGH" next to him.  Since the Editors surely would not knowingly publish 
an untruth for the sake of sensationalism, I conclude that they didn't see the 
correction, and that hidden-away corrections don't counter the effect of 
errors in headlines and front page stories.

--henry schaffer  n c state univ
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Brady bill decoupled from Crime Bill
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:44:21 GMT
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division


Apparently, the Brady bill (no telling what version) has been decoupled from the
Crime Bill, and there is an attempt underway to force a vote in the Senate by
October 3rd.

If the Senate version (very Staggers-like) passes, then the Joint Conference must
reconcile the differences.  Typically, in the past, this has resulted in the
*worst* of both bills being put into the final version, wrt gun control.

Today would be a very good day to call your Senators at (202) 224-3121 and
register your opposition to any form of the Brady Bill.

-- 
Kirk Hays - NRA Life.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
do nothing."  -- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Bush Blows NRA Support
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:00:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep24.190842.27444@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>, rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:
> |Instead, the NRA is focusing its political efforts on congressional 
> |races.
> 
> For NRA to accomplish it's mission on this matter, the NRA Political
> Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) must be sufficiently supplied with funds. Their
> funding a QUITE mission-critical to NRA's future combat with the gun
> control community.

I'm less than delighted with their political savvy, however.  This year,
in my district, the eminently defeatable Joe Early is up for re-election.
Now Joe is an unusual Massachusetts Democrat, with several unlikely 
positions on current hot topics.  One, he is pro-life.  Two, he is against
allowing gays to serve in the military.  He has been re-elected as much as
he has on the pure strength of his ability to bring home the pork.  And
when added to his being named a Past Master Check Bouncer this year, the
currently unfashionable nature of pork effectively negated this advantage.

In short, in this state, two months ago, describing Early's re-election
changes requires a word somewhere between "vulnerable" and "annhilated." 

Three challengers cropped up in the Republican primary.  Two were very
pro-gun-rights.  Of the two, one mirrored Early's distaste for abortion
and gays in the military, and one didn't.  Guess which one NRA called
out the vote for.

I can't understand the idiocy of backing the candidate LESS likely
to be attractive to the average Massachusetts voter.  In one stroke, 
Early's local weaknesses on his abortion and military stance have been
effectively abolished, with the result that he will probably be
re-elected.  Good move, NRA.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Grrr! _Atlanta_Constitution_ vs. NRA
Date: 3 Oct 92 07:09:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In <1992Oct2.210839.20766@ee.gatech.edu> bill@tesla.eedsp.gatech.edu writes:
>The Atlanta Constitution had control over last Sunday's (9/27) editorial
>pages.  In it, they took a scathing, factless attack upon the NRA.  No
>real surprises there, eh?  Cynthia Tucker apparently has a personal
>agenda which includes regular snipings at the NRA but her real reasons
>remain her own.

I would like to point out to other net.readers why us Atlantans post 
with such frustration about the AJC. The AJC has basically a monopoly
on the news in this town.  6 days of the week there are two separate editions,
an Atlanta Journal, and a separate Atlanta Constitution.  Sunday we get
a combined edition.

The front pages are usually different, and supposedly one is liberal-oriented
and one is conservative. I however frequently have trouble telling which
is which.

-- 
The War on Drugs is just part of the War on the US Constitution. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: troy@cs.sfu.ca (Troy Brooks)
Subject: Re: 25 states ... .sig (Re: Full-Auto 22s manufactured by Drug-Crazed
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:22:13 GMT

In article <92274.112629U53734@uicvm.uic.edu> Wesley Bielinski <U53734@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.203504.19269@gtephx.UUCP>, forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford
>@ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) says:
>>!Next, make prisons a miserable place to be instead of a place that
>>!is better than life on the streets!  

	[stuff deleted.]

>BUT THAT'S INHUMANE!!!      :-)
>
	It's also pointless, unless you're only interested in retribution.
	At some point, all these people come out. Do you want them
	even more bitter and twisted than when they went in? Yes, a
	large number of convicts re-offend. I'm not suggesting that
	rehabilitation is any kind of a science, or that it could ever
	be 100% effective. However, the education programs and recreational
	facilities you refer to make up a fairly small percentage of the
	overall budget of prisons, I suspect. Your small cost savings
	would reap only a higher incidence of re-offending.

>IMO, a person who commits a crime against society or a member thereof, should
>forfiet the rights to belong to that society.
>
	They do; that's what being in prison means...

>In other words, Treat them like shit, they deserve it for what
>they did to someone else!!!
>
	Who does this help?

>Wesley J. Bielinski                    | "I love my country,
>SGT, USAR       U53734@uicvm.uic.edu   |   it's my government I fear!"
>12th Special Forces Group (Airborne)   |

Troy Brooks
troy@cs.sfu.ca
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Jackie Mason show
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:12:06 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

Well, while waiting for Murphy Brown Monday night, I ended up watching the Jackie Mason
show (on WWOR in NYC, via my cable feed), since it had a segment on gun control.  It was
good news and bad news.  The good news was that the host was actually fairly sympathetic
towards pro-gun rights and there were a number of guests who were pro.  As well, the
audience seemed sympathetic.  The bad news was that every hackneyed false cliche we've
had to listen to in the past was trotted out - without rebuttal!  Including the one about
being N-times more likely to be shot by a friend, family member, etc...  On top of that,
one of the anti's justified requiring strict national laws because you can obtain guns
from out of state.  No one contradicted him.  It reached the heights of stupidity when
one anti averred that if everyone was allowed to own a gun, "we would have Dodge City
all over again.  Showdowns and duels in the streets."  Sigh.


-- 

Dan S.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Privileges and Rights. (was: Re: GORE...)
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 22:13:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.133656.1@woods.ulowell.edu>,
cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:

> In article Charles Scripter writes:
>  
> > I've heard this claim a couple times, but I believe it is incorrect.
> > The US Constitution is based on English Common Law, and the "Right
> > to Travel" was a Right of the English people (perhaps listed in the
> > Magna Carta?).  I also believe some of the early American treaties
> > mention this (someone once mentioned the Northwest Ordinances, though
> > I haven't found the reference to travel, yet).  Any prior treaties, are
> > binding on the US, as Article 6 states:
> 
> I don't want to stray too far from the purpose of this network, but I seem to
> remember that we are living under American law not English law.

Correct.  English Law is based on "English Common Law" (i.e. the Magna Carta).
The Constitution, and American Law are based on "English Common Law" (and
thus, the Magna Carta, etc.).

> >      "All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the
> > Adoption of this Constitution shall be as valid against the United
> > States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation."

Additionally, this clause retains those engagements and contracts which
existed prior to the Constitution (i.e. the Magna Carta, Articles of
Confederation, Northwest Ordinances.... etc.).

> > It also seems that licensing schemes for drivers are based on the
> > States (wrongfully) extending their powers to regulate commercial
> > drivers.  So, it's quite questionable if driving is merely a privilege.
>
> Not all drivers are commercial drivers.

Correct, but the State only has the power to regulate commercial drivers.

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Perot
From: bjones@convex.com (Brad Jones)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:40:28 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX ComputerCorp. The 
 opinions expressed are those of the user andnot necessarily those of CONVEX.


I've heard him say that the answer to crime is suspension/elimination
of the Second Amendment.  I've also seen it in print, but I haven't
kept any copies.

Maybe someone else can provide more precise references for those that
only believe what's in the "New York Times" (All the news that's fit
to tint).

Talk about mixed emotions.  I'd love to see him upset the applecart
and bring D.C. to its knees, but his stance on our rights has always
scared me to death.

Brad
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Clinton Might be Much Worse than Bush for Gun Owners
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:31:10 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Lowell

Might?
--Ray Cote
     "The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the
conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going."
                                                   --Francis H.C. Crick
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Criminal finally stopped...by a gun
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 05:12:58 GMT

In article <4539@equinox.unr.edu> malc@pyramid.unr.edu (Malcolm L. Carlock) writes:
>It's already clear that this thug didn't -- it's already illegal to carry
>and/or own handguns in SF without a permit.  Golly!  Didn't the thug know
>it's ILLEGAL to carry a gun in SF, not to mention threatening hotel guests
>with one?

Unless things have changed very recently, no permit is required to own
a handgun anywhere in California. I think there used to be a San Francisco
law like this, but the courts threw it out, since the State laws take
precedence.

However, carrying one does require a permit, so your right to say the
criminal involved was already violating the local gun control laws.

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: bashiti@emba-news.uvm.edu.UUCP (Abbas J Bashiti)
Subject: Re: Alleged murder in Brattleboro VT
Originator: bashiti@newton.emba.uvm.edu
Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:55:30 GMT

From article <BD.92Sep27100232@fluent.UUCP>, by bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby):
> 
> 
> 
> I post this story as an example of situations when it would be nice
> if the person being threatened had the option of buying a handgun 
> without a waiting period.  I know this is anecdotal evidence, but a 
> few months ago when I posted something supporting the idea of waiting 
> periods, I was persuaded through e-mail (as opposed to the BS that was 
> posted in response) that there are some situations when a waiting 
> period would be a major problem.
> 
> I have no idea if the police recommended this woman arm herself, or 
> if there is a waiting period of any kind in Vermont.
> 
> I just can't understand someone being so scared they're going to get 
> hurt that they buy a funeral plot but don't buy a gun.  That man should 
> have been dead the minute he touched the car door with knife in hand.
> 
    This is horrible.  The state of VT has no waiting period or concealed
carry laws.  This tradgedy should never have happened if the woman
had chosen not to be a victim.  The Police should have told her to
take care of herself, and she shouldn't have given up and bought a plot.
In other words you're right.  I haven't heard anything of this story up
here, but I also haven't been keeping up with the news and could've
missed it...

later,
AJ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: California gun laws
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 05:59:30 GMT

In article <6830@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>> Assemblyman Rusty Areias sponsored a bill
>> which requires that a handgun buyer take a safety course or provide
>> some other form of proof of gun competence (such as a hunting license)
>> before a handgun could be sold to the buyer. 

>> "Meanwhile, Lundgren [the state Attorney General] has sent a letter
>> to Assemblyman Rusty Areias telling him that there was no budgetary
>> appropriation to allow funding of mandatory safety training for
>> prospective handgun buyers.

>> If the law is not repealed by
>> then, people who are not otherwise exempted would be unable to
>> purchase handguns since they would be required to take a safety
>> course which did not exist."

>What, you mean in California it was generally expected that if the
>state required a safety course, the state had to provide it?

There is something odd going on here: When the law was passed (about 
a year ago, while I was still living in Berkeley), I took a look
at it. There it required taking a state-provided course, _or_ any
similar private course. Was the wording changed, or did I miss 
some loophole restricting private courses?

                                            Frank Crary
                                            CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula)
Subject: Re: GORE (and it's pretty gorey)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 12:47:38 GMT

In article <5573@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.boeing.com> simnet@ssc-vax.boeing.com (Mark R Poulson) writes:
>
>Without voter registration, you could walk into any voting booth and help to
>raise other peoples taxes and elect someone else'e representatives.
>

For those of us who live in suburbs and work in the city, this exact phenomena
of having our taxes jacked by city residents with no vote ourselves happens
all the time. Personally, I would like to see the ability to vote on tax
issues reserved to those who have to *actually* pay the tax. I'm not
sure why this thread has gotten so far adrift from t.p.g. related topics
though....
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Re: Re: A little on self defense (what should I carry ?)
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:30:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.200158.22764@news.yale.edu> watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt) writes:
>The original poster's statement is somewhat misleading.  There is nothing
>about self-defense notes per se which need to be protected from "being
>found out".  Ayoob's adivce is to write up your notes from the course,
>mail them to yourself certified, and lock the *unopened* envelop in your
>safe deposit box.  Your notes are discoverable, and help establish what
>you knew at the time.

A cynic might point out that this is a double-edged sword.  If you
make a bad judgment call on a self-defense shooting, then these notes
could be used to crucify you in court.  However, LFI's all about
making the right decision, so this really is pretty good advice.

Drew 
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: NSW homicides
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:10:47 GMT

In article <LAMBERT.92Oct1021348@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au> lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
>>>>>Wrong.  My model has two parameters (pre 1920 rate, post 1920 rate).
>> The third parameter is the year at which the change occured (1920). 
>Is it your contention that I could have picked 1915 as the year in
>which the change occured if that gave a better fit?

You could have picked any year after 1920. It would be quite reasonable
to claim the law took a few year after enactment to have its full effect.

                                                Frank Crary
                                                CU Boulder


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Privileges and Rights. (was: Re: GORE...)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:32:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.133656.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>I don't want to stray too far from the purpose of this network, but I seem to
>remember that we are living under American law not English law.

However, the American legal system is based on English common law, and
the framers of the Constitution were thinking in terms of it. Especially
in the case of vague terms ("due process of law", "other rights retained
by the people", etc...) the common law definition is implied.

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: A Case History of Newspaper Bias re: Firearms
Keywords: sensationalism slant
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 21:33:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.200235.25637@ncsu.edu>, hes@ncsu.edu
(Henry E. Schaffer) writes:

>   "It's very disturbing, knowing that those criminals and drug dealers
> have bigger guns than we have," said Sgt. J. W. Weatherspoon.

See, this is what *really* bugs the police; Not only are the criminals
better armed, but they have bigger GUNS. =;-> ("This is my weapon, this
is my gun, this is for fighting, this is for fun..." ;-)  Ho ho ho!

>   Police said high-powered assault weapons, whether automatic or
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Of course, this is the real contradiction.

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,va.general