HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: Random gun control
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:37:05 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.234512.4775@trl.oz.au> djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:


>Here in the Australian State of Victoria we have random breath testing for
>car drivers. The police set up a road block and breath test drivers for a
>blood alcohol level less than .05. When this was introduced there were some
>protests from a few civil liberatarians but most objections came from hotelliers
>and other sellers of alcohol. The result now, some years later, is a change
>in attitude towards drink diving and a much reduced road toll. A great community
>and personal benefit in road safety at the cost of a few minutes hassle perhaps
>a couple of times a year.

     First, this would violate the fourth amendment of the U.S. 
Constitution.  (Which states there must be "probable cause" for a 
search, and in general outlaws "blanket" or random searches.  The idea 
is to prevent the government from being able to barge into your home 
and go through your belongings without ever suspecting you or a crime.
     Second, many states *have* done this, to no real effect.  Drunk 
driving continues to rise.
     Finally, it is not simply a question of "benefit" vs. "hassle."  
The police have no right to search me or test me with some form of 
suspicion.  Random searches are blatant violations of our civil 
liberties. 

>Most t.p.g. posters would like to see the criminal element in society disarmed,
>so how would "random gun checks" be received in US states? 

     We'd scream bloody murder, and rightfully so.  The police must not be 
allowed to search anybody they feel like.  This leads to harrasment, scare 
tactics, and a police state.

>I know some would
>say this infringes some right but if you are a law-abiding citizen with a duly
>registered firearm then surely this hassle would be a small price to pay to
>disarm criminals. This would also make GUN CONTROL for law abiding citizens
>unnecessary.

     I do not consider violation of one right to be a valid alternative to
the violation of another right.

>DJ...


===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak)
Subject: 911 Fails Family Twice!
Originator: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:50:36 GMT



rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:

>Letter in the July 22, 1992 Daily Herald:

>PHONES INSTEAD OF GUNS

>I read with interest this morning, the front page article about
>suburban women buying guns. Wouldn't it be much better and cheaper
>to buy a cordless phone? It's so easy to dial 911, and safer than
>using a gun. Using a gun, you have to have a good aim, and there is
>a good chance of missing your target, not to mention the ill feeling
>of having a gun in the house. No need to worry about the gun going
>off accidentally.
>
>Keep the cordless phone in which ever room you are in. What good is a
>gun in the night stand in the bedroom if you are in the kitchen? A
>dispatcher will come to your house when you dial 911 even if you
>don't say a word over the phone. Just make sure the batteries on
>your phone are always charged.
>
Elsie Link
>Rolling Meadows


And todays newspapers in Denver have the headline: "911 FAILS THE
SAME FAMILY TWICE". A family had a car stolen a week ago. In the
car were a set of house keys. The thieves use the keys to stage
a home invasion on the house. The 16 year old kid was home alone
at the time, and dialed 911 to call for help. It took 20+ minutes
for the Police to arrive. The kid had to climb out onto the roof
to escape the intruders. Five days later the family saw their
stolen car being driven by someone. They called 911 from their
car phone. The police once again took 20+ minutes to respond.
The really interesting part of all of this: The wife is the 
Regional Director of the ACLU! Good thing gun control is stopping
all of this nasty crime. . . . . . . . 

                                Bill Vojak
                                Bill_Vojak@stortek.com
                                NRA, ILA, CFC

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER NOT!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Whenever someone tells you you won't need a gun, you better
 bring one along."  -  Robert Mitchum as PI Philip Marlowe
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: Mike Tighe <tighe@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: weapon identification
Originator: tighe@convex1.convex.com
Reply-To: tighe@convex.com
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Texas
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 04:15:33 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>> In article <1992Jul29.034735.11445@convex.com> tighe@convex.com writes:
 
>> Overreacting a little don't you think?
 
> Nope.  Feel free to spread misinformation, but don't expect anyone to
> praise you for that.
 
Of the 9 facts I presented, 8 were correct and 1 may have been technically
inaccurate, although it was semantically correct. The jury is still out.
Hardly spreading misinformation, especially relative to this newsgroup.
 
Calling all of this "wrong, wrong, wrong" is over-reacting.  Especially
when I can document that you are wrong on at least 2 of your assertions
that I was wrong (see below).
 
I do not recall stating that I expected to be praised. This is spreading
misinformation on your part.
 
> "Most" depends on whether or not Cobray was the manufacturer.
 
Well, the one I handled at a recent Gun Show was stamped Cobray. And
according to the 10-Jul-92 issue of Shotgun News, it is also. This is
documented in advertisements by different distributors on pages 24 and 27.
Also, both advertisements specifically state that it has a "12 Rd. Drum
Mag". So it appears it is you that is spreading misinformation, by claiming
I was wrong.
 
> There were at least TWO manufacturers, one used the name "street sweeper"
> while the other(s) used some other name.  The guns were functionally
> identical.
 
Not exactly. There is also an advertisement on page 132 for the Striker 12,
and it looks very similar to the Street Sweeper. In fact, the advertisement
specifically states, "Don't Confuse us with the Street Sweeper". It appears
you have done just that.
 
It is not functionally identical according to the manufacturer. How ironic
you would flame me for implying that something was functionally identical
and then make the same error yourself. Now, what is that quote about glass
houses?...
 
Anyway, this is petty and if you want to continue to play you will have to
do so by yourself. The record stands corrected and documented.
 
Cheers,
Mike
-- 
Mike Tighe, (214) 497-4206
tighe@convex.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods and rights
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:26:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.172655.21544@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell) writes:
>I think it's useful to differentiate those who wish a short waiting
>period for "cooling-off" or whatever else from a bona fide crackpot
>who happen to edit a small-town newspaper.

But you still haven't responded to the assertions that: (a) waiting
periods of *any* length infringe on rights, and (b) "short" can
be an eternity when you need a gun NOW.

>Get real.  Nobody important has ever really proposed waiting periods
>this long.  It's like quoting the Klan on civil rights and saying,
>
Well, the People's Republic of California started out with a
Brady Bill-like 7 day waiting period.  When it did absolutely
nothing to stop crime (surprise, surprise), they lengthened
the wait to 15 days.  The argument that some slimeball politico
may try to pass warm-fuzzy-feel-good legislation extending
this wait to 30 days has merit.  After all, they *did* increase
it from 7 to 15 days, didn't they?

Drew
--
drew betz : wj8k : dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu   
"Our campaign is the opposite of 'competence.'"
- Clinton aide Eli Segal, quoted in the 7/22/92 _Wall Street Journal_ 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:18174 alt.politics.clinton:975
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 12:58:48 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.151436.13991@sdc.com> kenk@sdc.com (Ken Konecki) writes:

>In article <1992Jul27.002750.18791@news.acns.nwu.edu> asbestos@nwu.edu (Michael A. Atkinson) writes:
>>I am hardly a revisionist (although I speak only for myself).  I can tell
>>you this:  nowhere in the Constitution is the Congress or the Executive
>>empowered to infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

>What about the power to regulate interstate commerce, maintain the post
>office, and power to tax?  All of these things have been used in the past
>to restrict the sales of firearms without Supreme Court veto.

The Supreme Court cannot veto anything. They will occasionally overturn laws 
that they interpret as unconsitutional.  There has been only one ruling on 
the Second Amendment since the turn of the century, and it was questionable, 
since the RKBA side was not present at the hearing and only the other side 
was heard.

>>IMNSHO, no government in the US, Federal, State or local, is empowered to
>>restrict RKBA.  All waiting periods on and bans of small arms (Pistols,
>>rifles, and shotguns) are unConstitutional.

>Until 1925, freedom of speech was not protected by the 1st amendment at
>anything other than the federal level.  Neither was freedom for religion
>until 1940.  It has only been in the last 50 years or so that the Bill of
>Rights has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to apply at the state
>level and only then by virtue of the 14th amendment 

So.  Whether they applied before is irrelivant.  By virtue of the 14th 
Amendment, they, includeing the RKBA in the Second, apply now.

>  In addition, the second amendment was written to
>prevent the newly created national government from disarming the state
>militias; the states needed reassurance that the new government with its
>much stronger powers (as opposed to the weak and ineffective government
>that existed under the Articles of Confederation) would not infringe upon
>the sovereignty of the states.  

No, it was not.

>It was not intended to provide anything
>to private citizens.

Yes, it was.

>This is not to debate whether private citizens should own firearms, but
>merely to point out that the rights supposedly granted by the second
>amendment were never really there in the first place.

>Cheers,
>    -Ken K

>-- 
>Ken Konecki
>e-mail:kenk@sdc.com    -or-    ...!uunet!tellab5!sdc!kenk
>"I just found out that the brain is like a computer.  If that's true,
>then there really aren't any stupid people.  Just people running DOS."
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jglarson@watmsg.waterloo.edu (Johan Larson)
Subject: Re: Foreign Interest in the US RKBA 
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:15:30 GMT

In article <5015@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.042439.16881@trl.oz.au>, djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:
>> What percentage of eligible people actually vote in US elections? Here it is
>> about 98%, thus the majority gets what the majority chooses. If less than 50%
>> of voters actually vote then the majority of people still may not have their
>> choice.

I have been lead to believe that voting is mandatory in Australia.
Is that true?  If so, how severely is this duty enforced?

Mandatory voting seems like a reasonable duty of citizenship;
I think it is folly to expect rights without undertaking 
burdens and responsibilities.

>
>Who gives a damn about the people who didn't vote?  Their vote didn't make
>a difference either way.  Only the people who vote get to decide the outcome.
>Your assumption is that 1) all the people who didn't vote might have voted
>the other way, and that 2) if the election had come out the other way it
>would have made a damn bit of difference in salvaging the constitution in any 
>case.  In point of fact, in this country, you can choose between two parties
>who each want to bowdlerize the Constitution -- just different parts of it.

"No one loves his country more, or trusts his government less, 
than an American."
-- 
Johan Larson
                    The net is packed with objectivists, anarchists, 
                    libertarians and self-appointed threats to the current 
                    order, writing on company time with company equipment.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:18333 soc.women:14329
From: earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.women
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for guns and domestic violence
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:31:36 GMT
Organization: $10.99 Brainwashing special this week only!

In article <1992Jul28.121332.57554@cc.usu.edu> slzm9@cc.usu.edu writes:
>...
>   The NRA seeks to keep the AK-47 assault rifle legal to the public.
>That is enough for me to know they are misguided. Noone needs an
>automatic weapon with that kind of firepower for self defense. Gang
>members however find it an excellent weapon for turf wars.
>...

Yes, that's right, the "public" should be prevented from having anything that
might cause harm to one another.  After all, the "public" CAN NOT BE TRUSTED.
Only the government can be trusted.  Only your elected leaders can be trusted.
Do not trust anyone not associated with the government!

We all know the government exists only to serve the public and it should have
all the weapons and power because it would never abuse our trust.

Hey, am I the only one who has noticed this "trust only the government"
attitude lately?  Why do you trust the government, but not your fellow man?

Doesn't make any sense to me.
From: blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Chafee Handgun Ban Bill Introduced
Date: 31 Jul 92 13:23:44 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <12617@inews.intel.com> bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.204018.18180@ns.network.com> greg@gogol.network.com (Greg Mclachlan) writes:
>>The following was taken from a letter to GOA members.
>>*
>>Senator John Chafee (R-RI) has introduced a bill (S. 2913) that 
>>would "prohibit the manufacture, importation, exportation, sale
>>purchase, transfer, receipt, possession or transportation of
>>handguns and handgun ammunition..."
>
>Sucker city.
>
>There's no way an all-out ban can pass, and he knows it.
>
>When it is defeated by a _large_ margin, he will use that
>as political fodder, saying there's "no support for restrictions
>on guns" or some sort of "mandate" on the NRA's version
>of the 2d amendment.

Depends on his previous stands on the issue.

What are those stands?

-- 
************************************************************************
Thaddeus Krag Blayda blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu, v063j3h4@ubvms.buffalo.edu
# Caution : DANGER #  This Country is at critical mass.
Vote Libertarian in '92!  Vote Marrou/Lord!  Vote to have your freedom back.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: uk09365@nx08.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:28:11 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <1992Jul28.164106.29920@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>  
jobo@jobo.austin.ibm.com (Joe Bowen) writes:
> In article <1992Jul24.014557.23458@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>  
dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz) writes:
> >
> >And you get more dead wives.  Even the gun controllers acknowledge
> >that strict gun control, if it would affect dosmestic violence at
> >all, would reduce the number of murderous husbands being justifiably
> >killed at the expense of greater wife fatalities.
> >
> 
> The actual statistics show a handgun in the home is most likely used 
> against the occupants by an intruder.  The usage of a family member 
> against another in defence is quite low.  And, I doubt that the gun
> controllers acknowledge what you say they acknowledge.

My machine is buggy today and locks-up when I try to use the
personal email reply function, or I would have sent this in
that manner.

Lets look at Joe's claims.

- The actual statistics show a handgun in the home is more likely
- used against the occupants by an intruder.

I am familiar with articles over the last 19 years which indicate
that a handgun in the home is more likely to be used in the
suicide or criminal homicide of an occupant than used to
kill a burglar.  I know of nothing that indicates that intruders
use householders' own guns against them with any great frequency.

- The usage of a family member against another in defence
- is quite low.

Would that it were.  Joe's claim can be read as meaning 
that people rarely have to use lethal force for self-protection
against family members.  This is, sadly, not true.  I have
already posted that 50% of interspousal homicides are women
killing husbands and the vast majority of those are in self
defense against an assault by a murderous, abusive spouse.
Incidents involving other family and acquaintances abound.

Now, I think what Joe really meant was "family members rarely
use a gun in defense against an intruder, etc. . . . " (I
hate to put words in other people's mouths; but I don't think
I'm being unreasonable in this case.)

IMHO, Joe is making the mistake of assuming that effective
self-protection means killing a burglar.  Since he doesn't
say this outright, I'll wait for his clarification.  For now
I ask only what familiarity he has with Kleck's research
on defensive uses? 

Robert K.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: uk09365@nx02.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 21:19:41 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.192209.5902@convex.com> Mike Tighe  
<tighe@convex.COM> writes:
> In article <1992Jul25.195818.3033@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de  
> (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
> > Assault rifles are the weapon of the heavy duty psycho or major league
> > crook or some jerk playing at being one.
> 
> Please share with us the source of your information that allows you to  
draw
> these conclusions.

He must watch American television.

RK
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: chuckh@apex.com (Chuck Huffington)
Subject: Re: Washington State gun buy-back
Organization: Apex Computer Company
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:55:47 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.215727.11458@microsoft.com> alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:
>Stolen guns will be discovered through a police check and returned
>to their proper owners.  All other weapons will be destroyed.
>Individuals surrendering guns under this program may remain anonymous
>if they choose, and will be issued letters of amnesty from the King
>County Prosecutor's office for any crimes involving the illegal carry
>of a weapon, or of receiving stolen property.
>
>The operation is being run privately due to a Washington State law
>which specifies that confiscated guns must be sold by auction; since
>the planners of this buy-back wish to destroy them rather than selling
>them back into circulation, they are running the operation through a
>private group and avoiding government participation.

How is a private group going to get police checks?
How does a private group give offical amnesty?
Is this private group licensed to deal in firearms?
Is this a strawman transaction to get around a state law the gun-grabbers hate?

Does anyone know what the status of the Seattle Police refusal to
obey this state law is?  Any prosecution yet?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: alford@alc.com (Mack Alford)
Subject: Re: Honstage Situations (was Re: Shoot to Kill vs Shoot to Stop)
Organization: Ascent Logic Corporation
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:45:23 GMT

In article <viking.711857509@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan
Sorenson) writes:

>	Who here saw the movie "48 Hours"?  <raise hands>  Remember the >last scene,
where the bad guy has a good guy in front of him as a hostage, >and Nick Nolte
does a quick aim&fire into the bad guys shoulder?  I'm >_never_ going to do
something like that.  But, it did cause some contemplation on this 
  <<rest deleted >>
Did you see the Miami Vice episode in which our hero follows a guy who had
kidnapped a 10 year old girl and took her down to the swamps??
The perp when cornered puts the gun to the girl's head and sez:
  " Back off and drop your gun -- if my finger even twitches, the girl
      dies."
Our hero keeps advancing, with his gun centered between the guy's eyes, saying
      "If I hit you between the eyes, maybe you won't even (BOOM) twitch".  
He didn't twitch.  

Or the movie "Billy Jack" ( I think it was the first one), where the bad guy
sherrif grabs a girl, puts a gun to her head, and sez 
   "Back off and drop the gun or the girl dies". 
Billy Jack sez, "Go ahead"
Sherrif sez, "What??"
Billy Jack sez "Go ahead and shoot her -- she is nothing to me." 
Sherrif sez: " You mean you would kill the girl just like that??"
Billy Jack "No, YOU would kill the girl, not me.  And then I would kill you
    just like that".  
Billy Jack then aims the rifle at the Sherrif's head. 
Sherrif drops his gun, says " You know me, I wouldn't do that".
Billy Jack sez, "You know me, and know that I would". 

The point is, if you drop the gun, he possibly kills you both. If the perp is
crazy enough to threaten it, I have to assume that they are crazy enough to
carry it through.  Thus dropping your gun is equivalent to murder of the
hostage and suicide for yourself.  When his gun is pointed at an innocent and
he is threatening to kill, I believe that I have every moral and legal right
and even the moral obligation to drop the perp as quickly as possible.  

Even if or expecially if it is my wife or my daughter under the gun, I go for
the head shot.   And I keep firing until the threat is gone.  

Just some fodder from discussion. 


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns