HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: A new solution! (Was: Re: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:42:49 GMT

In article <9301061641.51@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>Wayne Lo didn't have an FID.  He was able to buy a gun in Mass under an
>act of law that allows "hospitality" to out of state visitors.
>
>And it is extremely easy to get an FID ( allows purchase of long guns and
>ammo ) unless you live in Boston.

Unless your local police chief decides to make it otherwise.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:35:21 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <16B4AEE80.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>>In article <1hvjpgINN1o3@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavare) writes:
>>>In article <9212311212.23@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>My wife is stalled on her permit because all of the people she's known
>>>for any length of time in the area are anti-gun.
>>
>>That's life.
>
>       That's amusing.

I may have a strange sense of humor, but I find it amusing that someone
who wants to buy a gun has friends that are all anti-gun.

>>This is assuming that anyone who steps up to the counter to buy a
>>gun has innocent intentions.
>
>        This is the only proper assumption.  The government is not
>*allowed* to decide you are a criminal unless *they* can produce
>proof.  That's why *they* have to prove you guilty in a court of
>law, not you who has to prove yourself innocent.  That's why *they*
>have to have a sufficient amount of evidence to even bring you to
>trial.  It invites the sort of government abuse our Constitution was
>written to prevent if they are allowed to label you a criminal unless
>you prove otherwise, or until they get around to checking you out.

When you apply for a gun permit, you are neither on trial nor under
arrest.  It is a case of determining if the prospective gun purchaser
is a criminal or not, something which the gun store owner can't do.
And it probably, in this litigous society, protects the gun store
owner and the manufacturer from being sued in some cases.

>        Some are.  Some aren't.  Most probably aren't.

And the fact is that they are allowed to under Arizona law.

>       It may have been somewhere.  But summary confiscation, of any
>property, doesn't seem to make the news very often.  It's fairly common
>to confiscate weapons and not return them even if there are no charges
>filed or the person is acquitted.

I have no knowledge of that.

>       A $200 dollar gun is a one time investment.  And it's taking
>a gamble to assume all a mugger wants is your wallet.

And it's a gamble to assume that you can pull out a gun and fire before
the mugger, who already has his gun pointed at you.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Subject: Re: CCW permit for Columbus, Ohio.  Huh ?!?
Keywords: ccw, columbus ohio
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:35:21 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.042802.7073@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>A complaint was filed against Ohio State roundball star
>Jimmy Jackson alleging that Jackson waved a gun a some folks
>that he knew.
>
>The talking head on the news stated Jackson has a concealed carry
>permit for the city of Columbus!  "What the heck ?!? " do you say ?
>Very strange.  Jackson is a student, can't be much over 21 if that.
>Does he live on campus ?  Where does he keep the gun ?
>
>I'm going to make some calls Tuesday and see what I can find out
>about the Columbus concealed carry permit.  Ohio state law says you
>cannot carry concealed, except in your own home or your own place of
>business or if you can provide a "affirmative defense" which means
>you are guilty until proven innocent -- i.e., you can convince
>someone in a long black evening gown that you were carrying where
>"a prudent person would go armed."
>
>How can Columbus issue CCW permits ?  They must apply only to Columbus.
>I'd like to know exactly what the city ordinance on this says.
>
>I wonder if other Ohio cities have CCW permits as well.
>
>I wonder if any of the Columbus city council scum who voted for the
>Columbus "assault weapon" ban and waiting period a few years ago
>have a Columbus CCW.
>-- 
>Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com

Several months back over in rec.guns during a discussion on carry in Ohio,
someone claimed that Cleveland had a permit system good for the city only.
Municipalities may have this power. BTW, when is Ohio getting a real license
system? I have licenses in Indiana and Pennsylvania, but Ohio screws up
the continuity while traveling. Go figure.

















-- 
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only  |
 | Midterm Countdown-Bill and the Congress have to '94 to screw it up |
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:03:25 GMT

rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

>This could easily be an anti vehicle registration and insurance debate.

>Just remember when taking money out of the bank as cash that the government
>believes that only drug dealers use $100 bills.  A withdrawal of as little
>as $1000 can get you silently reported to the government if you take it as
>$100 bills.

I wouldn't be suprised if this is true, but is it?  Are there actual 
reporting requirements for a small withdrawl of $100s?  Where can I see 
this statute?    How about deposits of $100s?

I know that a transaction of $10,000 requres a rat call as a SOP, 
but I wasn't aware of regs on C notes.  In some countries it is
illegal for banks to talk about your business to anyone, and I
wish it was like that here, but it's not so.


>Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
From: drm@esl.com (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: TIME is on the ropes, asks for forgive
Date: 10 Jan 93 00:14:14 GMT
Reply-To: drm@esl.com


I noticed that a recent (post-New Year's) issue of Time had an editorial  
cartoon in which the "Somalian Rifle Associaiton" asserted their rights to  
deep and bear rocket launchers in the face of Marines bent on confiscating  
arms used in thuggery.

I haven't noticed any pro-gun articles or cartoons, though I am not a  
reader of the magazine. (Just happened to flip through it in the check-out  
line.) 

Looks to me as if their conversion to objective, balanced news was  
half-hearted.  Send in those cancellation notices.

--
Don McGregor | Double your pleasure, double your fun.  Xerox
drm@esl.com  | your paycheck.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan)
Subject: Re: gun control
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: who knows
Date: 12 Jan 1993 11:57 EST  

btree!hale@UCSD.EDU (Bob Hale) writes...
>The following letter is reprinted with permission from the January 1993
>issue of "The Blue Press" published by Dillon Precision.  

>...You can't imagine how many
>laws and restrictions I must comply with here in Italy.  
>...Last statistics in Italy showed that we are second in the world
>for the number of murders (after USA) so we can plainly see that
>all the restrictions, the full prohibition to carry handguns and
>the complete control on the arms owned by good citizens do not
>give the hoped results on safety improvement.  

What are the crime statistics of Italy and how do they compare with the US?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: How many gays are there in the NRA?
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:21:08 GMT

In article <1ikp71INNsk0@flash.pax.tpa.com.au> anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au writes:
>But I see that you are a doubting Thomas.  Ask Neal Knox and Jeff
>Cooper and Leroy Pyle what they think.

I happen to have had this conversation with Leroy Pyle.  Our anonomous
friend is wrong.

>Better yet, spread the word if you're an NRA member that you're gay
>(whether or not you actually are) and see what happens.

I've seen what happens when someone else does it.  Rather, I've seen
that nothing happens when someone does it.  But then, our anonymous
friend appears to be 0-fact in this discussion.

-andy


--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: skimmel@amex-trs.com (Steve Kimmel)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: American Express Travel Related Services
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:33:20 GMT

In article <9212311212.23@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>
>In Arizona, I believe, there is now a move to restrict the current laws
>that allow children to carry concealed weapons, as many parents are
>concerned that it has become fashionable for junior high students to
>carry concealed weapons.

Actually, there is _NO_ concealed carry permitted in Arizona.  In addition,
carrying a gun onto school grounds is illegal. Most of the
cities in the Phoenix metro area (about 5-10) have passed city ordinances
prohibiting people under 18 (?) from carrying guns in a legal manner without
the written permission of their parents.  Several people with the assistance
of the NRA appealed the law on the basis that the cities have no right to
pass laws governing firearms.  The appeal was turned down.  The NRA is now
working with representatives of the Governor to come up with legislation
at the state level to superceed the local laws.
I believe the original intent (beyond doing something, anything, just do
something...) was to give make it easier for the police to confiscate guns
carried by juveniles.  As expected, the elected officials were all for it,
as was the representative of the police union.  There was one letter to the
editor from a street cop who felt the law didn't add anything and any cop
who couldn't figure out a way of taking a gun away from a juvenile shouldn't
be in the field.  

I too am a neo-fascist-proto-socialist-anarco-totalarian-liberal-monarcist-
animal-rightist.  
-- 
Steve Kimmel   N7ULW           Phoenix, AZ      |                         
Internet skimmel@amex-trs.com                   | my views only, in no way
UUCP	 uupsi!amexphx!skimmel                  | the views of my employer.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: BNR Inc. RTP, NC
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:48:47 GMT

	
 
>someone wrote about criminals getting guns:
>No, they'll just find a way around it.  They'll buy smuggled guns,
>or simply steal one.
>> Hell, they're stealing them *now*.

>Rick kelly replied:
>Often from the homes of honest gun owners.

 And often from the police and military. We have had 2 incidents in NC. in 
recent years. The first incident had a couple of criminals ambushing lone
or paired soldiers on manuvers. Since the knew they couldn't carry live ammo.
They were walking away with 9mm's and M16's.	
 The other incident happened around Nov. 91 when someone broke into the armory
for the Charolette PD. they walked off with $20K worth of weapons and $10K of 
ammo. 
  I have yet to hear HCI comment on either of these, or the smuggled AK-47's
from IRAQ (real assult rifles) that a few soldiers are accused of bringing 
home and selling on the streets. 

  Criminals don't have to steal them from homes.
 
	Myron Petro
	NRA, USPSA
        DVC y'all
	**************************************************************************
	 The opinions included in this post are my sole responsibility.
	 And are protected by the First Amendment and guarnteed by the 
	 Second Amendment.   
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:08:57 GMT

In article <9301061603.16@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.142333.19957@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>>No, but passing laws just to make "you feel better" doesn't make sense.
>>
>>What does making that illegal have to do with keeping guns out of the
>>hands of criminals ?  The illegal market for any good can supply almost
>>anything if you have the money.  And criminals will spend the money to
>>obtain the tools of their "trade."
>
>So it's better to give up and have no restrictions on firearms?

If the alternative is restrictions that provide no benefits, yes.  We
don't have the resources to waste on measures that don't provide any
benefits.

That's why we keep asking for "does gun control work" evidence.  If it
doesn't, what's the point?

-andy
--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:48:45 GMT

In article <9301051932.51@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!cs.utk.edu!emory!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!ames!agate!linus!alliant!merk!rmkhome!rmk
>From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
>Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
>Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:32:21 GMT
>Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)
>Message-ID: <9301051932.51@rmkhome.UUCP>
>References: <1992Dec31.194027.1838@cbnewse.cb.att.com> <9301021313.22@rmkhome.UUCP> <pa142548.601.726243790@utkvm1.utk.edu>
>Lines: 23
>In article <pa142548.601.726243790@utkvm1.utk.edu> pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>In article <9301021313.22@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>>>>Then why are we threatening other people with jail?
>>>>
>>>>> The police would like to know who has guns.
>>>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>
>>>>And it is our duty to restrict that knowledge.
>>>
>>>Why is that?
>>
>>For the same reason it is our duty to restrict their knowledge of who 
>>travels where, or of who owns what, or what people's medical records say:  
>>because it is none of their business.
>
>Of the above, only medical records are kept from police.

True.  This does not make it right.

>
>Would it make you feel good inside to know that ex-cons who were in for
>murder or armed robbery could legally buy guns?

In my opinion, if you can't trust someone with a firearm, you can't trust 
him to be walking around loose.  If they are that dangerous, what are they 
doing out of jail?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:23:10 GMT

In article <9301021313.22@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>>Then why are we threatening other people with jail?
>>
>>> The police would like to know who has guns.
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>And it is our duty to restrict that knowledge.
>
>Why is that?

For the same reason it is our duty to restrict their knowledge of who 
travels where, or of who owns what, or what people's medical records say:  
because it is none of their business.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re:    ACLU and Crime (NOV 92, CJUST-L)
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:17:19 GMT

In article <5JAN199312191344@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) writes:

>Shooting Club at ASU <GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET> writes...
>> ========================================================================
>> Mr. Moderator: Please forgive if this has already been aired on t.p.g.
>> We feel this is a fascinating article from the ACLU and answers a few
>> questions many t.p.g readers may have about the "Guardian of Liberty".
>> Comments ?
>
>I made a quick scan of the article and found no mention of guns as one of
>the main causes of crime.  Has the ACLU changed it tune (not much, since of
>all the constitional rights that the ACLU discussed, it did not mention the 
>2nd Amend.) 

       The last I understood the ACLUs position on guns was:

       1) The 2nd amendment only applies to the national guard, and is
therefore not a civil liberties issue, and

       2) We really don't like guns and would like to work to see them
restricted, but no matter how we squeeze and push it just won't fit into
our charter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
From: gt6190a@prism.gatech.EDU (Stephen Burr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: communists + anarchists in the NRA
Date: 6 Jan 93 15:45:32 GMT
Organization: Georgia Tech

In article <viking.726308417@vincent1.iastate.edu>, viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
> csjohn@watson.mtsu.edu (J Wallace) writes:
> 
> >aforum@moose.uvm.edu (autonome forum) writes:
> 
> >>Just curious: how many other communists/anarchists are there in the
> >>NRA besides us? Hopefully there are some other leftists in the group;
> >>we can't let it get totally dominated by right-wing freaks!
> 
> >Is this a joke?
> >Do you have a name, or are you just another cowardly crackpot?
> 
> 	Finger provides nothing from my site.  Anybody else have any
> information?  In any event, I noticed something interesting in his
> posts.  Governments murdered people, guerilla's "executed" people.
> 
> 	I guess it's just a matter of how much slant you wish to
> put on your propaganda that decrees the rightness of your cause.
> 

Finger DID work from my site. Here's what it said.


Script started on Wed Jan  6 10:37:11 1993
/liba3/gt61/gt6190a orbiting richsun7: finger aforum@moose.uvm.edu
[moose.uvm.edu]
Login name: aforum    			In real life: autonome forum
Directory: /hp1usr/u/misc/aforum    	Shell: /bin/csh
Plan:

                     aforum@moose.uvm.edu

Autonome Forum is an autonomist information collective that disseminates
information about liberation struggles in advanced capitalist countries and
in the so-called "Third World". Our focus is on armed struggle and other forms
of militant/left-radical resistance, but we do not limit ourselves to this. 
We come from an internationalist perspective that is anti-capitalist and 
anti-imperialist, but we do not separate the struggle against patriarchy,
racism, and homophobia from the struggle against capitalism and imperialism.
The development of a coherent revolutionary praxis is, for us, not rooted in
dogmatic ideologies, but in an anti-authoritarian practice that draws upon
many different strands of revolutionary theory.

<<<<<stuff deleted>>>>>
script done on Wed Jan  6 10:37:33 1993

Hmmm..... "anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist". Does explain a lot of 
things, doesn't it???


-- 
Stephen Burr               | "My first time voting in a presidential  
Georgia Tech,              |  election... What a letdown."  -me 
Atlanta Georgia, 30332     |  Government - 
gt6190a@prism.gatech.edu   |      the last refuge of the nincompoop.
From: bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:12:03 GMT

In article <9301092248.24@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>In article <ARCHER.660.726427991@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>In article <9301061250.46@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>>God forbid we should do something about "releasing convicted murderers and
>>>>armed robbers on a whim" instead of screwing down on everybody ELSE'S guns.
>>>
>>>Or perhaps we should let the police shoot more criminals.
>>>
>>I think that allowing potential victims the means of self-defense will be 
>>sufficient, without granting yet more power to the state.
>
>Actually, since the 1950's, the courts have been taking power away from
>the police.  Maybe the police aren't comfortable with civilians having
>guns, because even the police aren't supposed to use them anymore.
>

Excuse me? Have you been around for the RICO laws and the 
"War on Drugs" (tm)? Do you know what the courts (notably
the Supremes) have been deciding in recent years regarding
"police powers"? Were you in suspended animation?

-- 
==========================================================================
              Disclaimer: These are my views, not the U's

        "If it's in the paper it must be true!" --- D. Doright