HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Date: 25 Aug 1992 23:58:54 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zabriskie.berkeley.edu

vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:

>Steve Pope writes:
>
>>Are you trying to tell me
>>the budgets for EPA, Interior, and Agriculture are primarily
>>funded by hunting license fees?
>
>I really don't think this is what Charles meant to imply -- at least
>that the funding is licensing specific, since obviously it's not.  Are
>you aware that over 80% of the DOI's funding comes from an 11% excise
>tax on guns, ammo, bows, etc. and the sale of Duck Stamps?  

Okay, John, if you throw in the excise taxes on firearms and ammo,
that's a much bigger pool of tax revenue than just the license fees.
Apologies if I misinterpreted Charles on this point.

However only a fraction of this excise tax is on firearms and ammo 
that are used for hunting specifically -- does your 80% number above 
take this into account? What fraction of firearm/ammo usage can be 
attributed to hunters?  Where I live (Alameda County, CA) I imagine 
it's pretty damned low.  Probably half the ammo sold this year was 
simply as a reaction to the King riots...

>>  I don't have the numbers in front
>>of me but I'm certain this is way off base.
>
>Clearly you don't have the numbers, since Charles's claim is accurate.
>Whether you AR folk like it or not, hunters are the single largest
>source of funds to help the environment.  Period.  

Again, I'm willing to be convinced, but so far, I am still
suspicious of such claims.

>But most conservative estimates I've seen in the
>hunting and conservation literature have been over *one billion*
>dollars per year from hunters.  How much does PETA contribute?  Can we
>count that low? ;-)

Well, I don't support PETA.  You're right, they contribute nothing, 
at least not directly.  PETA, like Greenpeace or Earth First!,
tries to gain leverage by using relatively small amounts of funds
in a highly political fashion.  Any conservation value they
generate, if it exists, would be too intangible to quantify in
dollars.

I do support the Nature Conservancy, and a few others who spend
money directly on conservation.  Which is really my point: if
the public has a desire to support conservation, through the
spending og private and/or public monies, they will, regardless of 
attitudes and policies towards hunting.  

> ...burying one's head in the sand rarely makes the facts go away.

Quite true, but you still haven't said much to illuminate things.

Steve
From: tcarter@seismo.CSS.GOV (Thomas Carter)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Question about U.S. vs. Miller
Keywords: None
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:39:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Center for Seismic Studies, Arlington, VA



     Does anyone know what the rational for appealling the (lower
     court) U.S. vs. Miller verdict. Did the state think that there
     was something wrong with the way the case was tried, or did they 
     just not like the outcome.





-- 
________________________________________________________________________________
Thomas B. Carter  Explosion Administrator |  Center for Seismic Studies
My wife calls this the Nut-Net...         |  tcarter@beno.css.gov             
________________________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dennis@bluemoon.rn.com (Dennis Carney)
Subject: Re: RKBA - are you missing the point?
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 08:59:43 EDT

richa@aspen.CNA.TEK.COM (Rich Amber) writes:

> 
> Folks, I've been reading both sides of this argument for years, and I
> think both sides have missed the point entirely. All this fuss over
> whether the 2nd Amendment gives anyone the right to keep and bear arms
> is unfounded (from either argument).
> 
> The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States DOES NOT
> GRANT that right. The framers of the constitution felt that right was
> given by God. We are born with a right to defend ourselves. The 2nd
> simply guarantees that the Government cannot remove the right.
> 
> And those of you who worry the militia phrase to death, the founders
> intended to preserve RKBA because a militia is necessary to keep the
> federal government from becoming tyranical (like the English king - which
> was the legal federal government at the time).
> 
> That is, we don't get to keep and bear arms because Uncle Sam says we can.
> We keep and bear arms because that's our God-given right. And because
> a militia (which every male in this country is part of, like it or not)
> is necessary to the continued freedom of the states, the federal government
> may not remove that right without recinding the 2nd Amendment. Period.
> 
> Flames to dev/null because no argument works.

You are absolutely right! Except that just removing the 2nd Amend would
not give the federal government the power to remove the right since it
exists without the 2nd Amendment. The Constitution would have to be
amended to grant the federal government the power to restrict the right.

The people and the states retain all rights not given to the federal 
government via the Constitution.


This is from:
    dennis@bluemoon.rn.com
---- The Soviet Union Died, But the Communists Live On ----
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: nope
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:00:05 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.060129.9184@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.035353.5927@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>Darcy seems to think that "regulate" implies govt control ...
>
>I have never said that. Please retract this gross mischaracterization of my
>position.

Darcy's right and I retract it.  It is a gross mischaracterization
because it is unreasonable to assume, as I did, that Darcy's positions
have local internal consistency.  I knew better than to make that
assumption and I'm sorry that I did.

Darcy has been arguing that the militia clause somehow restricts
"the people", that the 2nd isn't an individual right.
That's the opening line for a "the 2nd doesn't forbid gun control"
argument.  (Of course, the 1st doesn't forbid ALL speech control
either, but we're not talking about minimal permissive controls, but
restrictive ones, to use Zimring's terminology.)

The argument starts with with "the 2nd only applies to guns owned by
members of <some group>" often with a "acting as such", which is what
Darcy has been arguing.  To get that into gun control, govt has to be
able to control the group or its membership.  UNLESS one makes the
last connection, the militia clause's meaning can't have any relevance
to the discussion, yet Darcy insists that attributing it to him is a
gross mischaracterization of his position.

Darcy is right, all we really know about his position is that he
doesn't know what the militia clause means.  We don't really know how
that position fits into the whole of his beliefs.  I'm sorry that I
assumed that his overall position was locally coherent.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: nra bbs open now!!!
Date: 4 Sep 92 09:41:12 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

charlie.duncan@execnet.com (charlie duncan) writes:

>       Well folks it's here!
>       The NRA BBS is now open for business.

>       For those of you who have called Tanya's other board
>  [Bullet 'n Board], you may agree with me, that using it [BnB] is
>  less than optimal.

Oh my gawd.  I can't believe it.  She's about the most obnoxious 
person involved in the gun rights movement I've ever had the displeasure 
to talk with.  Is this BB NRA sanctioned or is she off on her own tangent?
If it's NRA sanctioned, boy do I have some letterwriting to do.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:20308 soc.culture.french:6291
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.society.civil-disob
Subject: Re: Black Market guns
Date: 31 Aug 1992 22:35:19 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <6#gnvkn.nagle@netcom.com> nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:
>
>       I've given up on gun control, but ammo control has possibilities.
>Ammo has a shelf life.

Ammunition is also probably even easier to make than the firearms that
use it.  I assume you have heard of reloading, but possibly you forgot.

In any case, the shelf life of ammo can be pretty long, given proper
storage conditions.  (Reliability becomes an issue over time, though.)

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Guns, and the necessity to trust our governement.
Date: 1 Sep 92 21:43:50 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <6048@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

> If you really believe this, you are indeed a fatalist.  The assailants
> who have the advantage are people like Patrick Purdy, who walked into a
> cafeteria with two handguns

Yes, yes, OK, OK, I KNOW it was George Hennard.

I've had a total mental block on Patrick Purdy's name for about two weeks.
Obviously, this is the route my subconscious finally chose to deliver up
the information.
-- 

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...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: RKBA - are you missing the point?
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:51:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.183032.16955@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) writes:

	   Un fortunately judges have set verdicts aside in the past.
	   I must shamefully admit that I do not know under what, if
	   any, circumstances that they are permitted to do this.  I
	   would hope that they could not legitimately set aside a not
	   guilty verdict or some other form of nullification.  Any of
	   you guys know anything about this?

My understanding of the issues follows.  I am not a lawyer, nor do I
play one on TV.

A judge may set aside a civil award or a guilty verdict on the basis
that the verdict was "against reason".  My understanding is that a
judge may not set aside a not guilty verdict in a criminal trial.

However, a mistrial may be declared for any one of a number of
reasons, including jury bias and/or influence.  I know of no rules
that a judge may not declare a mistrial based upon considerations in a
jury deliberation, including the fully informed jury amendment.
Indeed, I know of at least one case where a mistrial was declared
because of jury deliberations (a juror knew spanish, and disagreed
with the translation of the official translator concerning the
testimony of a spanish speaking witness.  The judge declared a
mistrial based upon this.)

I welcome further elaboration or corrections.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: crips's letter on clinton's gov't takeover
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:45:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.230341.8510@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
|>In article <1992Aug28.205730.4716@athena.mit.edu> jcconger@athena.mit.edu (John Conger) writes:
|>>Andy Freeman writes: 
|>>>The measures proposed can't affect criminal access because they don't
|>>>affect sources criminals use
|>>
|>>A good point.  This hadn't occurred to me, but it makes sense.
|>
|>Hold that thought.
|>
|>>>We get to decide whether [Clinton is] lying or stupid, but does it
|>>>really matter?
|>>
|>>I don't think Clinton is lying or stupid, but perhaps just has a
|>>different opinion than you on the issue.
|>
|>Remember "can't affect criminal access because they don't affect
|>sources criminals use"?  That's not a matter of opinion.  Either it's
|>true, or it isn't.  If it is true, then Clinton's "I support the Brady
|>Bill because I want to reduce crime" is either a lie or it's an
|>example of his stupidity.

From the _Wall Street Journal_, August 27, 1992, page A12:

[Begin quote]

...when, in the sweltering gymnasium of East St. Louis High School in Illinois,
the governer came down hard on guns and heavily in favor of gun control.  He said
he wanted even tougher laws than the Brady Bill, which would require a five day
waiting period before a person could purchase a handgun.

MASS DESTRUCTION
----------------

"I think it would be very important," he said of the legislation.  "I think that,
plus some of these gun-buyout programs that are starting around the country,
could help.  Then I think we need to take a serious look at whether we need these
automatic and semiautomatic weapons that are becoming instruments of mass
destruction in our cities."

But later that same day in Davenport, Iowa, where gun-control legislation is
viewed with skepticism, Mr. Clinton said he wanted even less than the Brady bill.
He first said he supported the measure and then stated:  "I don't have any
particular affection for [a waiting period of] five days.  If we could
computerize all records like Virginia has, computerize them all in this country,
we could get it [down to] an hour or 30 minutes."

[End quote]

There's no confusion here, nor is Clinton lying or stupid - he's going to push
for more gun control, he knows it won't do any good, and he knows it's PC.

"Slick Willie" - how appropriate.

-- 
Kirk Hays - NRA Life.
Start your day with a little civil disobedience.  Call BATF at 1-800-ATF-GUNS or
1-800-RUN-GUNS, tell them what you think of gun grabbers and government employees
that encourage people to narc on their neighbors.  Good for the soul.
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: CLINTON NEW TEXT: GUN CONTROL
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:13:48 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.194026.19000@ttinews.tti.com>, reid@metis.tti.com
(Reid Kneeland) writes:

> >  o    Suspended, as authorized by existing law, the importation
> >       for sale on the civilian market of several types of
> >       military-style weapons.
> 
> What the hell is a "military style" weapon?  One with a cammo finish
> (which is, ironically, useful for hunting)?   Or maybe it means any gun
> that costs a lot more than it should. :-)  Does it mean any weapon
> which the military uses?  That would be pretty much all of them.  (OK,
> we can keep our single-action revolvers and muzzle-loaders.  Oh happy
> day.)

Didn't someone once fight a revolution using muzzle-loaders?  I guess
those are military-style, too.

-- 
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: robs@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert Sipe)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: K-Mart, Iowa
Date: 4 Sep 92 00:28:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Boeing

In article <1992Sep2.135546.24472@stortek.com> vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak) writes:
>
>
> BTW: The K-Marts out here DON't sell handguns.  Wal-Mart does.  Some
> one on the net mentioned that the K-Mart in NJ (?) does sell handguns.
> This is bizzare since Colorado is a fairly free state for gun owners.





Speaking of Walmart, I understand that the directors have embraced
the idea of having Eddie the Eagle demostrate and promote gun
safety.  This is a great idea that will probably catch on to all their
stores.  It is one of the largest chain department stores in the
country and thus quite a coup for NRA's gun safety program.  Wayne
LaPiere, keep up the great work!!




-- 
For those of you who wish to send a clear message to Time-Warner for
promoting Ice-T's Cop Killer song, write to: Geral M Levin, CEO 
                                             75 Rockefeller Plaza
                                             New York, NY 10019 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Subject: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 03:07:47 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa

Clinton's platform position and rhetoric where he proposes to remove
the "assault weapons with no legitimate hunting purpose" combined
with his plan to put 100,000 new police officers on the street as
part of a "National Police Force" intended to be used to rub out things
he personally finds objectionable is the most dangerous combination
of proposals to come out of the wacko left wing of the DumbOCratic party
I have heard of in years. 

This is the perfect setup for Slick Willie to declare himself "President
for Life" for our own good! Here is the scenario:

Disarm the public of the weapons mos protected by the Constitution
(ie the weapons most useful by a militia)

Put in a goon squad staffed by "ex military personnel displaced by the
defense cutbacks" (read that as military personnel loyal to their
Commander In Chief, in short a military backed squad of civil liberty
ignoring thugs that know how to only do one thing: wage war), and disarm the 
people and make up some BS crisis like "the war in the inner cities" to 
"justify" their existence and the attack on the Constitution, and we have
the beginnings of Bill "President for Life" Clinton. Such a deal!
It would be cheap at twice the price.....

It is worth thinking about, you bleeding heart liberals, the time is not
too late to stop this dangerous, illegal assault on basic human rights.

-- 
Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk  "The Demos have to go!"   (408) 253 4541 fax

A government that is afraid of an armed populace is a government
the populace should be afraid of.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 2 (was Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 06:53:13 GMT

Minh Lang <minh@inst-sun1.jpl.nasa.gov> writes:

>I believe that you cannot UNINTENTIONALLY fire a single shot with
> a weapon set to auto. If it was really unintentionally, i t should be
>a burst. At least I have tried that in the pass
>on several full automatic weapons such as the AK47, M16, Thompson
>and the M60 machine guns. I couldn't let out less than 2 shots no
>matter how fast I released the trigger. 

	I think you meant "intentionally" in that first sentence.  In any
event, what's the cyclic rate of the MP5 versus the M3?  I can get a one-
shot from a full-auto M3, but it's a slow firer and I really have to try
to get it.  If that MP5 has a faster cyclic rate, what are the odds of a
one-shot to the neck from this weapon on full auto?

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Guns, and the necessity to trust our governement.
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:39:43 GMT

claude@isle.Eng.Sun.COM (Claude Manoit) writes:
>And for the Europeans: with the EEC normalizing all the rules and
>regulations and opening the borders, the question of gun-control
>must be addressed somewhere. Or maybe not (I doubt any thing so precise
>would be in the Maastritch treaty). Any fact?

The first cut was a passport system for gun owners.

As one commentator said, one hopes someone in the EEC appreciated the
irony of creating a passport-less border system by introducing a
passport system....

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Bad weather in Florida
Date: 26 Aug 92 01:15:47 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


They sent Dan to New Orleans!

Unfortunately, the eye will land west of him, unless Andrew takes a
*very* sudden veer north.

Too bad, so sad.  Why can't they send him to Yugoslavia?

Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-P  LPVa NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E"
Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia
Send e-mail for an application and more information
----------------------------------------------------------------
"...I am opposed to all attempts to license or restrict the arming of
individuals...I consider such laws a violation of civil liberty, 
subversive of democratic political institutions, and self-defeating
in their purpose."
        - Robert Heinlein, in a 1949 letter concerning "Red Planet"
-- 
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: Minh Lang <minh@inst-sun1.jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Denver Police Kill Another Un-Armed Person, Today!
X-Xxdate: Thu, 3 Sep 92 08:31:31 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:32:44 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.224056.14855@cbfsb.cb.att.com> Mr. X,
osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com writes:
>	Now I hope I don't have to tell anyone reading this that this is 
>	nothing more than my bitter sarcasm expressing itself.  What I
>	would seriously like to know is where is this shit going to end?
>	This story and all the others like it are so furiously repulsive
>	that I can't describe it in words.  That Americans have gotten so
>	damned complacent that they would stand for this kind of shit is
>	beyond my comprehension.  

It's FAR beyond my comprehension too. I just can't understand
why it keeps happening year after year? 

  == Minh ==
From: montoya@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Mark Montoya)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:39:22 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Why a sawed-off shotgun?
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise, ID
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns


Yes, I agree that the law-enforcement response has been extreme.  I shudder to
think of a future in which the Brady-Bill Ruger magazine bans and waiting
periods exist.  I suppose the Desert Storm response will be called up if
a tip is received about someone possessing an unregistered 16-round magazine.
Of course the local media is really playing up the issue, and it's hard to
know how the situation is really unfolding.  However, the hard facts (i.e.,
2 people dead) are quite disturbing, to say the least.

Auf Wiederschauen,

Mark
   
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns