HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: csjohn@knuth.mtsu.edu (Bullwinkle)
Subject: Re: Ban the Killer of 300,000
Organization: Dept. of CS, Middle TN State Univ, Murfreesboro, TN
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 20:38:55 GMT

In <veal.92@utkvm1.utk.edu> veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:

>In article <csjohn.711410541@knuth> csjohn@knuth.mtsu.edu (Bullwinkle) writes:


>[Stuff about the right to keep and bear cars.]

>>>Yes, it is the 9th and 10th Amendments.

>>You miss the point.  The RKBA *IS* enumerated in the
>>Constitution.  Keeping and driving cars is not.  So, the
>>9th Admendment plays no role in keeping and driving cars.

>     Have you *read* the ninth amendment.  It specifically addressess
>what is *not* in the Constitution, not what *is*.

Have *you* not read the 9th amendment???  
In case you haven't, or in case you have and need refreshing, the 
9th amendment states:
   "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people."

I'm no Constitutional scholar by any means, so perhaps you have
some insight into the issue that I don't have.  IMHO, it
seems like the 9th simply states that the rights listed in
the Constitution can not be used against the people to
deny them of other rights that they currently have.
I don't see what this has to do with our discussion. 
How do you see it?

>>The 10th does in that the Constitution allows for laws
>>to be passed restricting or banning ownership of cars
>>to certain individuals.  

>     Assuming the ninth amendment does not protect ownership and use
>of cars, then the tenth amendment restricts any power to control them to the 
>states, and not the federal government, thus the Constitution is not in 
>question as far as cars go.

You are right about the 10th in that it is the 10th which 
addresses what is not in the Constitution.  It states:
   "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
to the States respectively, or to the people."

It looks to me like the 10th does allow for States to pass laws
to ban autos from certain individuals (like drunks who have
a history of vehicular manslaughter).  In what way do you
see it differently?

> 
>>Yet what we have instead are
>>laws imposed on law abiding citizens restricting and banning
>>their RKBA, and no laws banning a drunk driving killer from 
>>his future ownership of a car.  Kind of bassackwards IMHO.

>     Both are a sorry state of affairs, but neither will be solved until we 
>deal with the problems rather than the symptoms.

I agree with you there.  
What do you think the underlying problems are?

- John
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods and rights
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:13:44 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.153445.1766@iti.org> smj@iti.org (Seth Johnson) writes:
>>
>>Touchy, aren't we?  Let's look at the whole picture.  Since the
>>passage of the (in)famous Gun Control Act of 1968, people MUST
>>buy their firearms within their state of residence.  Thus,
>>Californians MUST buy handguns in California.  If waiting
>>periods are so effective at stopping crime, then why hasn't 
>>California, or any state that has a waiting period, shown
>>a reduction in crime?  Waiting period supporters typically
>>"sit down and shut up" themselves when hit with this question.
>>Kinda negates the whole argument, huh?  Why worry about upping
>>it from 15 to 30 days when OUTRIGHT BANS can't do anything
>>to stop crime either?
>>
>Only Californians who purchase handguns LEGALLY are required to
>purchase them IN California.  Most criminals purchase their
>handguns on the street.  These weapons come from a number of
>sources.  Some are stolen from California gun shops, and others
>are (get ready for a shock here) purchased by illegal distributors
>in OTHER STATES!!!  It will be impossible to control the violence on
>our streets until the rules governing the sale of handguns are the
>same in all 50 states and the District of Columbia (where handguns
>are easy to buy right across the border in Maryland and Virginia).
>D.C. has a handgun ban, but it only takes a fifteen minute drive
>and a cooperative Maryland resident to get a handgun with no
>waiting.
>  

And so, here we go again.  One more time.  Please explain why it is
that the crime rate in Canada is so low.  If you attribute it to their
gun control policies (which many seem wont to do), please explain why
the fact that guns could easily cross the border from the U.S. doesn't
undermine thier gun control laws the way you complain that it does for
DC, California, etc.

Face it.  Gun control simply doesn't do anything with regards to
violent crime rates.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:18102 alt.politics.clinton:927
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:01:43 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Jul24.144214.28183@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, mzabel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Zabel) writes:

> The issue of gun control legislation is an attempt at a direct
> method of controlling crime, as is the issue of increasing
> the number of prison cells and police.  


Ah, no.  Increasing the number of prison cells and (MAYBE) police
officers is a direct method of controlling crime.  Gun-control 
legislation is an extremely INDIRECT method of controlling crime, 
especially since legislation tends to be of negligible effect on 
criminals.  

> The other side of these
> issues usually involve personal freedoms questions.
> I am a firm believer that ultimately direct methods are completely
> ineffectual without the proper environment to make them work.

Worse yet, excessive fixation on "perfecting" indirect methods
not only causes you to lose sight of your ultimate goal, but
damages the freedoms of people who otherwise would not be "direct"
targets.

> What do Bush and Clinton think about these questions?

Bush will make any deal that gets him elected.  Bush stated he was
pro-gun-rights before his election, then sold out his supporters.

Clinton thinks that eliminating guns will eliminate violence.
The best one can say is that at least he doesn't come by his position
cynically or hypocritically.
-- 

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...
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:18232 misc.legal:15062
From: zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,misc.legal
Subject: Pistol Permits in Massachusetts
Date: 29 Jul 92 12:02:59 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

I would like to get some answers to the following questions:

(i)	Are MA pistol permits supposed to be issued on a discretionary or
non-discretionary basis?  (I recall a 1985 state law that supposedly
stipulated the latter.)  What are the relevant sections of the MA code?

(ii)	Is there a set limit on the amount of time the issuing authority
can deliberate on an application?  If so, is there a way to enforce it?

(iii)	Short of hiring a lawyer, what recourse is available in case of
denial?  When hiring a lawyer, what are the expected costs and probability
of success?

(iv)	How does the state regulate the possession and carry of edged and
impact weapons?

Please post all answers.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: root@silverblue.fac.cs.cmu.edu (Operator)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 23:12:07 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Jul25.060757.20555@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)  
writes:
> In article <1992Jul24.042911.18398@dscomsf.desy.de>  
hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
> >The Canadians have a competent and well resourced police force to
> >enforce their gun control laws which have the support of their

..

> >Also an assault rifle is not exactly the ideal weapon for knocking off
> >grocery stores. They are big suckers, difficult to stick under your
> >jumper.
> 
> Oh, so assault rifles are not a problem. You should tell the State
> of California that, they are so scared of them they banned them.
> They should have asked HALLAM first and he would have told them
> the true story.

Oh - ok - I see. What California does is right,and everybody should
follow it's lead. 

What California does is not based on logic or fact
(ask the motorcycle riders of California about their mandatory helmet
law that was passed based on fabricated statistics and lies that Dick
Floyd (sponsor?) basically admitted to creating)

And no, assault rifles are not a problem, since assault rifles are weapons
that are switchable between full auto, burst, and single shot by flipping
a switch on the side. What you buy in stores are assault rifle LOOK  
ALIKES. They fire *ONE* bullet for *ONE* pull of the trigger. Any weapon
that fires more than *ONE* bullet per trigger pull is labeled as a machine
gun and is subject to the National Firearms Act of 1934.  After going 
through a background check by local and federal authorities, paying 
several hundred dollars in fees, and getting a written letter of 
permission from you local police department, you can own an assault
weapon. In fact, I don't think any assault weapons have been used in any  
crimes in the U.S. (anybody out there with stats on that?)So no, assault  
rifles are not a problem. 

They problem seems to be people that spew arguments based on lies,
misinformation, and fabrication, rather than truth.

Aaron



Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: Foreign Interest in the US RKBA 
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:40:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.141530.26184@math.waterloo.edu> jglarson@watmsg.waterloo.edu (Johan Larson) writes:

>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.

     The point of rights in the U.S. is that they simply *are*.  They do not 
have to be *earned*, nor are they the government's to give or take away at 
will.  They are beyond governmental control, gauranteed in the same document 
that empowers that government.

>"No one loves his country more, or trusts his government less, 
>than an American."

===========================================================================
|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: lion@netcom.com (carl loeber)
Subject: Re: Governing and Power
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 02:59:56 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

 I didn't concentrate on all that you said, but I get the point that you 
said, (at least I think you said)

that we have the means via elections to exercise our control as 
organized people, if we will organize.  True that the current
system is structured to favor money power ...

I am trying to change that and have ideas on methods and proposals..

And that this is backed up by force, legitimized force, or threat 
of force.

The question which I wonder if you treated is whether the people
did organize to change the status-quo power structure, and had
success... would non-legitimate means be employed to maintain
the status-quo power...

In other words, a combination of forces outside the law, as
portrayed the the film "JFK".

What can realistically be done to confront and prevent such 
usurpation of organized and concealed crime ?  of even the 
threat of unlawful force which is by every means sought to be concealed?




Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:11:25 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.082241.146532@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>A woman who wants an abortion must call a clinic and schedule
>an appointment.  I doubt that appointments are necessary to
>buy guns.  

And there are plenty of FFLs who operate out their basement.  They
don't advertise and you need to make arrangements to see them in
the evenings.  This is an appointment.  By the way, I'm not making
this up because I know such a fellow.  

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_ 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: <request> "Brady Bill" full text source
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:04:08 GMT

In article <BrpL61.DDG@world.std.com> lucifer@world.std.com (Kevin S Green) writes:
>Any suggestions where I might obtain a full copy of the
>"Brady Bill"? (Know thy enemy and all that...)

H.R. 7 and many other files are available in the rkba anonymous ftp archive:

archive.cis.ohio-state.edu:/pub/firearms/politics/rkba

The Brady Bill is in the file HR7.  If you don't have anonymous ftp let
me know, I'll get the file for you.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
From: post@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (David Post)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 03:44:37 GMT
Subject: Re: "Gun Control" in the Demo Platform (Was: democratic platform)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

dks@athena.mit.edu (dks, aka Dhanesh) writes:

 >Here are excerpts from the 1992 Democratic platform.

 >    Firearms. We support a reasonable waiting period to permit
 >background checks for purchases of handguns, as well as assault weapons
 >controls to ban the possession, sale, importation and manufacture of
 >the most deadly assault weapons. We do not support efforts to restrict
 >weapons used for legitimate hunting and sporting purposes.
 
Excerpts is right!  How odd that a key phrase has been left out of the first
sentence, which originally read:

    Firearms.  It is time we shut down the weapons bazaars in our cities.  We
    support reasonable....
    [...on and on...]
    weapons used for legitimate hunting and sporting purposes.  We will work
    for swift and certain punishment of all people who violate the country's
    gun laws and for stronger for criminals who use guns.  We will also seek
    to shut down the black market for guns and impose severe penalties on
    people who sell guns to children.

I wonder who chose how to edit the excerpts, and why.

I also wonder why Slick Willy, I mean Clinton, was out there making speech
about how he would support the Brady waiting period and "assault weapon"
bans.

These people, the Democratic power brokers, seem deeply conflicted and out
of touch.  They don't do any research.  They believe what they want to
believe.  And they want to LEAD America?

I wonder who I CAN trust.

David Post  davep@hpfcpp.fc.hp.com  hplabs!hpfcla!post
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: leem@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Lee Mellinger)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods and rights
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:54:24 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.192636.26135@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz) writes:
: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.
: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

Actually, California started with a 3-day waiting period that was
extended to 5 days, then to 7 days and now 15 days.

Lee

"...To hell with the constitution." -- Mike Roos, Califonia State
Assemblyman, Democrat-Glendale 1989.

"Nothing blasts forever" -- Keats on ammo.

|Lee F. Mellinger                 Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA
|4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/354-1163  FTS 792-1163     
|leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV
From: ray.normandeau@factory.com (Ray Normandeau) 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: NATIONAL BLACK RIFLEMEN
Date: 29 Jul 92 21:10:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Invention Factory's BBS - New York City, NY - 212-274-1243v.32bis
Reply-To: ray.normandeau@factory.com (Ray Normandeau) 



The Queensbridge Tenant Council which represents tenants in the
largest public housing project in the USA (Queensbridge Houses in
NYC) is trying to locate the: National Black Riflemen's Association.

I was hoping that maybe someone here might have contact information
for them. If so please reply to this message or by EMail to:
CompuServe ID 73770,121 or Internet: ray.normandeau@factory.com.
I usually check my Internet mail every day.
Messages can be sent from CompuServe to Internet by using on the TO
line >INTERNET: ray.normandeau@factory.com

Thank you,
Ray Normandeau
718-392-1267
Press Secretary for Queensbridge Tenant Council
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: damiel@netcom.com (Paul Theodoropoulos)
Subject: Re: Shoot to Kill vs Shoot to Stop
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 01:53:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
X-Spook-Fodder: hero heroin tree shrub bush birth life death FBI CIA NSA

In <1992Jul22.133749.202076@uctvax.uct.ac.za> glngar01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:

>The most effective way of putting a person down with a firearm with the 
>minimum of lethal force (ie. a single shot) is to aim for the pelvic area.  
>A solid strike in this region *should* dump your assailant on his ass with a 
>broken pelvis, yet not kill him.  Unfortunately, it may not prevent him 

this is apocryphal. there is no credible evidence to support this assertion.
i welcome citations that would contradict me.

>[deleted]
>My conclusion, you should definitely shoot to kill.

No, you shoot to stop.

-- 
paul theodoropoulos    hooools@well.sf.ca.us      damiel@netcom.COM

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan)
Subject: Re: Docs versus riflemen
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: who knows
Date: 24 Jul 1992 12:07 EST  

(David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes...
> ...
>Having been to both the US and Switzerland I must say that I feel much safer
>in Switzerland. Both populations (generally) are armed so it's not just the
>fact that guns exist in the hands of the population that makes the difference.
>The Swiss are armed for the security of their free State and work together
>to train a good militia to maintain that community freedom. This is the way
>it was intended in the US through the 2nd amendment. 

No, I don't think that the Swiss model is what the 2nd is about since the
Swiss gov can take the firearms from the people if it wishes.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:18322 talk.bizarre:23908
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: BIG GUNS AND LITTLE REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS...
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:08:46 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona

In article <1992Jul28.233502.24933@athena.mit.edu> sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
>And perhaps winged monkeys will fly out of my butt!!!

Sounds probable, given what I've read about your personal hygeine.

>Get real, you hippie,

Ad hominem.

>guns and the technology required to produced them
>are here to stay.

Where's my hand-tooled flintlock?

>Guns equalize physically unequal people

Some guns are more equal than others; so you're just
rationalizing.

>and preserve law and order.

Not according to those who have been shot to death trying
to enforce the laws and keep the peace.

>Every person has an inalienable right to self-defense,

Unless one's standing next to a cop.

>and the most efficient means of self-defense.

Which would be to kill everyone within 3000 yards
instantly.  When I get my issue of plutonium,
I'll come and sit by you.

>>Besides...flowers are a *lot* nicer than guns. 

Not.

Hayfever.  <Sniffle! Snork!>

Guns at least don't make me sneeze.  (I have, however, no
idea what Rem-Oil is doing to the skin cells on my hands...)

>Ok, I'll get rid of my *flowers*.

Dispose of them wherever you left your brains.

>>Peace!

And kerretz.

>Have a nice acid trip.

Have a nice acid bath.

>You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.

Stop tempting me, fat target.

>   "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
>                          --Thomas Jefferson

"So long as man has possessions, he is not free."
			   --Jean-Paul Sartre

>   "God made man; Samuel Colt made him equal."

Samuel Colt made a fortune.

Wake up and smell the commercial manipulation.

				--Blair
				  "I love the smell of
				   Usenet in the morning.
				   It smells like...INVECTIVE."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 01:59:07 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.002050.16717@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>|>	If gun laws make all the difference, why isn't Mexico 
>|>	safer than the U.S.?
>
>Because with guns freely circulating north of the border ther is little
>chance of gun control laws working?

Then please explain why Canada has much lower crime rates than the US?
By your reasoning, all those bad US guns ought to be as available to
the Canadians as they are to the Mexicans.

Also, do Switzerland's neighbors have problems with Swiss guns making
a run for the border too?

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns