HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Bad cops - a perfect example
Date: 21 Dec 92 22:22:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Twilight Zone

In article <75745@apple.apple.COM> earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace) writes:
>
>
>The solution is to get the congresspeople, politicans and the other rulers of
>our society to fight these battles for us.  That's their job.  If each
>citizen trys to "correct the system" on their own -- it will never change.

	Nice in theory, perhaps, but when some rat cop has a gun in your face
	getting ready to relieve you of your brains just cause he don't like
	the way you look, your friendly local Senator's efforts ain't gonna 
	buy you a whole lot.  

	Me?  Oh, I'd remove the weapon from the officer's posession and have it
	in his dark place in no time flat.  That's the beauty of unarmed 
	martial arts training: no way to disarm me 8^)=).

>In a country of 250 million people, I'm sorry to say that you can't do
>it alone anymore.  We have to work together and use the tools for the
>90's: Faxes, Phones, Computers and Letters.

	I wish this were true, but is is not.  Our Guv is not designed for
	change.  It is very effectively designed to maintain status quo.
	Even the most cursory analysis of the design reveals this clearly
	and unmistakably.
>
>Use the gun for target shooting, hunting and self-defense.  Don't even
>*think* about using it to correct society's problems.  You just give ammo
>to the anti-gun groups!  I would like to keep my gun, thank-you.

	Well, I guess this becomes a matter of semantics, but if I use my gun
	in self defense, I have done a small part to help cure some of our
	societies woes.


	The anti-gun lobbies will not stop at their games, no matter how
	responsibly we gun owners may act.  In fact, I'd bet you a thousand
	years salary that if all gun crime ended tomorrow, those idiots would
	*still* be out there whining about gun control.  

	-Andy V.
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Clinton's Intentions?
Date: 30 Dec 92 14:39:10 GMT
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.

In article <1992Dec30.001556.1234@newsgate.sps.mot.com> rrbk50@email.sps.mot.com (Rick Cottle) writes:
>I've heard that Hillary's old man will attack the gun 'problem' by
>trying to outlaw many kinds of ammunition,

Can you be more specific ?  Here are some examples that attack ammunition
which I know of.  Senator Moynihan introduces every year a bill to ban .25,
.32 ammo.  This past session it also included 9mm ammo.  There was a bill
which would have doubled the price of lead via a tax to be used for lead
abatement.  The joint conference committee "compromise bill" had funding
for a "study" to determine if incendiary ammo [e.g., sold under the name
Dragon's Breath] has any law enforcement applications.  You can guess what
that "study" will lead to.  And so on.  These ideas are not really new, but
Clinton does have the opportunity to push for more restrictive laws.  Will
he get a .25/.32/9mm ammo ban ?  I doubt it.  Will he get a ban on incendiary
ammo ?  I think so [no "sporting purpose" and all that baloney].

>thus by passing the current strategies like the Brady Bill, etc.
>Supposedly this will be easier to do than outright banning firearms.
>
>Can anyone shed some light on this?

Another media blitz, initiated by Josh Sugarman, is to increase regulation
on gun dealers.  By reducing the number of dealers [e.g., by requiring
gun dealer applicants to obtain local law enforcement approval on the
application form], competition is lessened, prices go up and the demand
for guns goes down.

Trying to make predictions of the future is pretty futile, but those are
some indicators of what can happen under Clinton.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: A thought about fully automatic weapons...
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 05:55:25 GMT

In <102969@netnews.upenn.edu> yee@mipg.upenn.edu (Conway Yee) writes:

>On tpg it is frequently stated that fully automatic weapons are less
>than useful in a militia and that all one really needs is a semi-automatic
>weapon.  The only real use of a fully automatic weapon is to lay down a
>field of fire to suppress the enemy.  Fully automatic fire is difficult 
>to aim and that it only results in the waste of ammunition.

	Yet I think most t.p.g members would argue that full-auto has
its uses, and that the best bet is selective-fire anyway.  The full-auto
debate is usually centered around a particular scenario.

>First of all, I note that the military has not yet decided to forsake
>automatic weapons in favor of semi-automatic weapons.  Could it be that
>short bursts are indeed useful?  I note that the M-16 is capable of
>3 shot bursts.

	Note that the M249 and the venerable M60 are still issued, and
both are designated to be the suppressive-fire weapons in the squad.  In
a militia role, which t.p.g often mentions, a machine gun would be useful
to suppress others until your small squad could get into position for
aimed fire.  Yes, it has a role, but no it's not cheap or accurate.

>Second, I take notice the arguments posed on rec.radio.cb and
>rec.radio.amateur.misc  For those of you who are not familiar with current
>FCC rules, CB's are restricted to 4watts.  Amateur radios (aka ham radios)
>can transmit as much as 1500watts.

	Reminds me of a man from my home town.  He was a HAM and an CB nut,
and had a 1kw kinear amp for his CB.  He didn't jump skip to Florida, he
TALKED to Florida.  In his instance, the CB was fun but limited, and the
easiest method to get around that limitation was an amp.  On his HAM rig,
he talks all over the world on a couple hundred watts.  He doesn't need a
kilowatt rig.  Methinks it's all in fitting the solution to the needs.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >





Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad)
Subject: No Time
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 20:26:45 GMT

Drop Time, read the Economist.  They are also anti RKBA, but are civil
about it and it takes more than a few seconds to come up with a
counter argument (keeps you on your toes).

But, they also publish news about stuff other than movie stars.  There
is more coverage of the U.S., issue for issue, in its 10-20 pages
devoted to the U.S., than in all of Time magazine.  In addition, you
get more coverage of the world and better writing.

My .02


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+Dick Winningstad                                                    +
+                    Italian Wines are Fine                          +
+          I'd rather be on a Moto Guzzi in eastern Oregon.          +
+dickwin@sequent.com                                                 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: davebe@vicenza.Corp.Sun.COM (David Beattie)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: reduction of availability
Date: 24 Dec 1992 16:49:19 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: davebe@vicenza.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: vicenza.corp.sun.com

In article 4019@nas.nasa.gov, proett@tailspin.nas.nasa.gov (Thomas M. Proett) writes:
>
>Doesn't this show some correlation to "more guns" ==> "more murder"?
>-- 
>proett@tailspin.nas.nasa.gov
>NASA Ames Research Center

`"more guns" ==> "more murder"', only if you *don't* look at countries like
Switzerland, and certain areas of the U.S. (like Upstate N.Y., Vermont, etc).  In the
areas that I mention you could correlate "more guns" ==> LESS "murder".

---
davebe@vicenza.corp.sun.com     or     david.beattie@corp.sun.com


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: Here's the problem
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:31:40 GMT

>>The following came from talk.politics.drugs but I thought it illustrates
>>quite starkly what is wrong with the criminal justice system.  Amazing
>>that is is considered twice as bad to own a chemical as to rob someone
>>using a weapon.
>
>[wizbang charts deleted]
>
>Yeah, I suppose that is because we have declared "WAR ON DRUGS", and have
                                                                  ^^^^^^^^
>yet to declare war on GUNS.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Earth to Randy, Earth to Randy come in!

Is this a joke or have you been residing on Mars or something. The war
on guns has been going on since before I was born!

				mike
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: Fight the bastards (was Re: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: Twilight Zone
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 21:48:59 GMT

In article <+vsr!p_@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:
>
>>  I have what my lawyer called an "clear case", but I can't afford to 
>>  pursue it. For over a year I contacted pro-RKBA people for help. And all
>>  I got was a bunch of lip-service (some useful, most not).
>>  Anyone with lots of money want to finance a sure-win case against Class III
>>  signiture discrinination in Lexington Ky.? 
>
>First I'd heard of your case.  

	Same here.

>I can't finance the whole thing right now but I would contribute to
>the cause.  I think a number of other gun rights activists in this
>group would too.

	Perhaps somone can setup a trust for this?  Also, I would like to
	know some of the details (just out of interest).  I'd probably be
	able and willing to throw you a few bucks to help out if you 
	decided to take this up.

	How much is such a case expected to cost in the long run?  Be gentle,
	I wretch easily :).


	-Andy V.
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Date: 29 Dec 92 15:04:40 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


Brandon, the reason why we are so upset about this is that such mazes
of red tape already exist, most notably in the firearms arena.
 
You need to get your head out of that sandpit the University of Iowa
has kindly provided for you and take a look at the real world you'll
soon be living in.  We only sound paranoid because we see what is
really going on and you either can't or don't wish to.

I'm writing a reality check paid to your order.  I hope you use it
wisely.

Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-A  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
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Whether the authorities be invaders or merely local tyrants, the 
effect of such [gun] laws is to place the individual at the mercy of 
the state, unable to resist."
       - 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: rrbk50@email.sps.mot.com (Rick Cottle)
Subject: Clinton's Intentions?
Organization: SPS
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:15:56 GMT

I've heard that Hillary's old man will attack the gun 'problem' by
trying to outlaw many kinds of ammunition, thus by passing the 
current strategies like the Brady Bill, etc.  Supposedly this
will be easier to do than outright banning firearms.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

--
_____________________________________________________________________
R i c k   C o t t l e           
#include <std.Disclaimers>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: Lawrence Mass.
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:40:25 GMT

>I am saying that you are wrong here

Sorry should have read I am NOT saying...

				mike
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Toy guns
Date: 23 Dec 92 23:10:57 GMT
Organization: Sometimes

In article <1992Dec23.212607.9287@linus.mitre.org> jon@cyclone.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum) writes:
}
}I am essentially a civil libertarian with anarchistic leanings so my
}stance on weapons should be pretty easy to figure out.  However, I
}feel that toy weapons are not a good thing.  Many of my friends are
}surprized by this and perhaps rightfully so.  But they are even more
}amazed when I tell them that I would prefer to give a youth a real
}weapon (with the proper attention to maturity, training, etc.).
}
}How say you all?
}-- 

I'm inclined to agree from the standpoint that a toy gun may diminish the
respect due a real firearm. However, what standards or measurements would
you use to asses maturity?  I'm not a parent so I'm asking those of you who
are. 
}<jon@mitre.org>|--24HR Libertarian Party News (900)454-2378 [$1.95 a minute]--
}----------------------------------| Libertarian Party            (800)272-1776 
}          DON'T BLAME ME!         | 1528 Pennsylvania Avenue SE  (202)543-1988
}       I voted Libertarian.       | Washington, DC 20003         (800)682-1776  


-- 
   ---------------------------------------------
  | Richard B. Schwartzman, RBS Communications  |
  |  Media Coordinator, DE. Libertarian Party   |
  |         rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu            |
  |              (302) 455-0354                 |
   ---------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Re: Lawrence Mass.
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:20:55 GMT

In article <105573@bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
>I must admit that the anti-gun control people have pointed out 
>flaws that I had not considered with restriction of availabilty
>of firearms and ammunition. I do however feel that mail order
>ammo is ridiculous.

the concern with mail-order ammo is access, and you're assuming
that mail-order access somehow facilitates crime.  yet you've
no evidence for this.

>No guns are not the only weapons out there, but they
>are by far the weapon of choice with criminals.
>
actually, this claim is also unsubstantiated (e.g., "weapon
of choice" is an HCI catchphrase - but a gun certainly isn't
a "weapon of choice" for unarmed robbery, is it?  ack.)
even if guns were the "weapon of choice," gun bans don't
stop criminals.  so why disarm the rest of us?

>Still,being more Anarchist/Libertarian minded, goverment controls 
>of any kind are diststaful to me.
>
i'll agree with this one.

>So that leaves me with the Anarcho-Capitalist Enclave.
>A place where you can lower probabilities of crime.
>
>Consider what the Police in Lawrence Mass are doing now:
>
>In a for 4 block area known for drug dealing and prostitution
>they have "sealed off" the area. Residents are given "passes".
>There are checkpoints where the police will ask to your
>license and registartion, they give you a card explaining why
>you were stopped and they record your licence plate number.

this isn't anarcho-capitalist.  this is nazi-gestapo.
welcome to the USSA.  and you don't like government controls?!?

>The first effect is on Suburbanites who come into the 
>city to buy drugs or sex. Not activities you want veiwed
>in the harsh light of day. The second is that the high visibilty

of course not.  the prostitutes and drug dealers will merely
set up shop a few blocks away!  this is a useless approach from
the get go.

>of the police has also reduced the number of people loitering
>(of which might be drug dealers and prostitutes).
>It seems to be working. Streets where children dared not play
>or old people dare not venture are now safe.
>
yeah, and no tell us about the adjacent areas where all the
prostitutes and drug dealers have set up shop.  ack.

>It may not last:
>The ACLU is taking legal action against the Lawrence Police.
>
as well they should.  if it weren't for their gun stance, i'd
still be a member...

drew 
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
"Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds." - Oppenheimer
From: mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Downside to FFL?
Date: 22 Dec 92 12:58:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: BNR Inc. RTP, NC


 William E. Sadler wrote:
This is incorrect, I believe.  I'm a FFL holder, and there is no requirement
>for my personally owned firearms.  When I 'sell' myself a gun out of my
>inventory, the same records are kept as for anyone else.  Anytime I buy a gun,
>if the conditions permit, I can do so as either an individual, into my private
>collection, or into inventory, where it is the businesses property and is
>tracked by FFL paperwork.

I don't have my handy redbook with me but I remember reading all firearms at your
business location have to be recorded in a bound book. You are allowed to have as many
bound books as you like. If your business location is your home any firearms stored
there must be recorded in a bound book. Also if there are firearms in your location that
are your personal collection they are supposed to be tagged not for sale or reading 
between the lines the ones in your personal collection must be identifible from the 
ones for sale.
 
	 
	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.
From: yee@mipg.upenn.edu (Conway Yee)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: A thought about fully automatic weapons...
Date: 22 Dec 92 17:15:44 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

On tpg it is frequently stated that fully automatic weapons are less
than useful in a militia and that all one really needs is a semi-automatic
weapon.  The only real use of a fully automatic weapon is to lay down a
field of fire to suppress the enemy.  Fully automatic fire is difficult 
to aim and that it only results in the waste of ammunition.

I have come to question the veracity of the statements which purport to
say that fully automatic weapons are not really all that useful.  I speak
not from experience but from other data points.

First of all, I note that the military has not yet decided to forsake
automatic weapons in favor of semi-automatic weapons.  Could it be that
short bursts are indeed useful?  I note that the M-16 is capable of
3 shot bursts.

Second, I take notice the arguments posed on rec.radio.cb and
rec.radio.amateur.misc  For those of you who are not familiar with current
FCC rules, CB's are restricted to 4watts.  Amateur radios (aka ham radios)
can transmit as much as 1500watts.  In this analogy, CB's are the semi
automatic weapons and Amateur radios are the fully automatic weapons.
In rec.radio.cb, the posters are constantly arguing that increased power
does not buy you a whole heck of a lot.  Most of the advantages come from
a better antenna.  Thus, high power amplifiers are not useful and not a
good idea.  On rec.radio.amateur.misc this is not an issue at all.  Better
transmissions are achieve using both better antennas and higher power.  If
hams were to take the "lessons" from rec.radio.cb to heart, all would be
operating QRP (low power) and hoisting up mammoth antennas yet the typical
ham transciever runs at circa 100watts output.  Only those interested in
low power do so.  Those who are not transmit at far higher power levels.

Could it be that the arguments saying that fully automatic weapons are not
that useful fall in the same category as those found in rec.radio.cb ?
I wonder.  Anybody care to comment?

Criticism and comments to tpg.  Flames to me (and will be cheerfully and
promptly stored in /dev/null).

-- 
411 Blockley Hall      |                    Conway Yee, N2JWQ
418 Service Drive      | yee@ming.mipg.upenn.edu    (preferred)
Philadelphia, PA 19104 | cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (forwarded to above)
(215) 662-6780         |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: The War On Drugs and the National Guard
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:05:01 GMT

In article <DLB.92Dec29093229@fanny.wash.inmet.com> dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes:
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!uunet!noc.near.net!inmet!inmet!dlb
>From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
>Subject: Re: The War On Drugs and the National Guard
>In-Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP's message of 28 Dec 92 21:08:26 GMT
>Message-ID: <DLB.92Dec29093229@fanny.wash.inmet.com>
>Sender: news@inmet.camb.inmet.com
>Nntp-Posting-Host: fanny.wash
>Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
>References: <1892@tnc.UUCP>
>Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 14:32:29 GMT
>Lines: 20
>An excellent article, passed along.  I wish to address only one part
>of it:
>
>   Guardsmen in Title 32 status can undertake vehicle searches,
>   searches of buildings, and can enter private property without any
>   sort of search warrant or any other legal permission.  The only
>   authorization a Guardsman on Active Duty for Special Work status
>   needs to search anything is the permission of his or her immediate
>   commander, i.e. the officer in charge of the group at the time.
>   (National Guard Regulation 584-3, Section II, page 6)
>
>Has this been tested in court?  If so, can anyone provide any
>citations?  A National Guard Regulation taking precedence over the
>Constitution?  What gives?
>
>If this is indeed the present situation, then it is a VERY scary one.
>Constitution?  What Constitution?
>

This releases the Guardsman from legal obligations and puts the onus of 
lawbreaking on his CO.  That way, line grunts can follow thier orders 
without worrying about getting sued.  Whether or not the CO can give these 
orders outside of a declaration of Martial Law is something I do not know 
about.  And I have some serious reservations about the constitutionality of 
marital law as well.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: Effectiveness of gun control
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 20:02:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.190031.24169@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean
Alaska) writes:

   Results

   In Washington, D.C., the adoption of the gun-licensing law
   coincided with an abrupt decline in homicides by firearms ( a
   reduction of 3.3 per month, or 25%) and suicides by firearms
   (reduction, 0.6 per month, or 23%).  No similar reductions were
   observed in the number of homicides or suicides committed by other
   means, nor were there similar reductions in the adjacent
   metropolitan areas in Maryland and Virginia.  There were also no
   increases in homicides or suicides by other methods, as would be
   expected in equally lethal means were substituted for handguns.

   [The body of the study contains many graphs and tables documenting
   the claims above.  It also discusses why the intuitive idea that
   gun availability through the black market would render controls
   useless does not actually pan out.]

Sigh.  Reading this newsgroup a while will avoid such silliness.

This study has been discussed ad nauseam here.  The figures are given
in absolute terms, not homicides per 100,000.  The population of the
District dropped over the same period by approximately the same
amount.  Any final reduction, when given in homicides per 100,000
population shows no statistically significant correlation.

Of course, it also stops just short of the big jump in '88.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com