HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: NRA Ratings (was Re: 1992 Senate Races: No Contest
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:10:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.135925.4796@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:
>
>
>|Does anyone know how the GOA comes  up with their rating? 
>  
>I sometimes wonder about how NRA comes up with some of their "?"
>ratings. The NRA rating chart listed Carol Moseley Braun and Bobby
>Rush as having a "?" rating in Illinois.
>
>Former Black Panther Defense Minister Ald. Bobby Rush is WELL-KNOWN 
>in Chicago as being anti-RKBA; he is an exemplar of how a little
>legitimate political power can corrupt a person absolutely.
>
>Carol Moseley Braun during the Democratic Primary campaign attacked
>Sen. Alan J. Dixon on the RKBA issue; so why would it be unknown the
>candidate's position on the RKBA?

I wonder if the NRA Regional Representative is at fault.  Frankly, I
think Chuck Cunningham (he represents OH and IL, among others) is a
spineless lazy wimp.  He of all people should know about Rush and Braun!
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:21852 misc.legal:18259
From: dont@execu.execu.com (Don Thompson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Leonard Levy, "Original Intent", etc.
Date: 7 Oct 92 13:30:18 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Austin Dev. Center, Comshare Inc.


>>From article <1992Oct6.152435.15187@eff.org>, by mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin):
> Well, it should be noted that if the original understanding of the Second
> Amendment was *not* to reserve a right to individuals, the word "people"
> in the Second Amendment means something far different from the word
> "people" in the First Amendment.

>--Mike


How/Why does the word "people" have a different 
meaning in the First Amendment than the Second? What do you base this on? 
How do you reconcile this with the several Supreme court opinions
stating explicitly that the term People means everyone ( more or less ).
-- 
________________________________________________________________________________
Don Thompson                        |   I may be opinionated, but at least
Comshare Inc. dont@execu.execu.com  |   my opinions are my own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sjo@cci632.cci.com (Steve Owens)
Subject: Re: Privileges and Rights. (was: Re: GORE...)
Organization: [Computer Consoles, Inc., Rochester, NY
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:54:30 GMT

In article <lairdb.718866492@crash.cts.com> lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes:
>In <1992Oct8.164442.10551@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>>In article <lairdb.718315415@crash>, lairdb@crash.cts.com
>>(Laird P. Broadfield) writes:
>
>>> Yes, BUT.  Under the citizen-shareholder concept, we are regulating your
>>> activity on common property; you are welcome to exercise your right to
>>> your heart's content on your own property.
>
>>Ah, but you must be careful here!  Suppose I tell you that you have the
>>right to speak, but only on *your own property*!  Now you cannot set up
>>a soap box, and expound your views to the enlightenment of the public.
>>You cannot distribute your papers beyond the boundry of your property.
>
>>You have a right to a Jury trial, but only if you are not on public
>>property...  You have protection against "searches and seizures",
>>but not when you travel on public property...  (this may already be
>>happening...; That your protections against searche and seizure are
>>claimed to be invalid, because you're on public property).
>
>>Here, you begin to tread dangerous ground.
>
>Ah, not at all.  This is what the agreement between me and the government
>(the Constitution) is all about: an agreement about how I may conduct
>myself on the property-of-all-citizens which is administerd by the gov't.
>Remember that the city park in which I set up my soap box *is* my
>property, and yours (if you're a citizen), and hers, and his....
>Once again: there is no such thing as "public" property, only things-
>that-are-owned-entirely-by-me, things-that-are-owned-entirely-by-you,
>and things-that-are-owned-by-both-of-us-as-shareholders.  The majority
>of shareholders may indeed limit what I can say or do on our mutual
>property, by passing regulations governing it.  The original Board of 
>Directors wisely set up a system that makes it much more difficult
>(Ammendments) to regulate some things.
>
>Follow?

	Yep.  And following this line of reasoning, all gun bans and
the Brady Bill are unconstitutional, as they infringe upon the ownership 
and use of my private property.

>
>-- 
>Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
>Hi!  I'm a shareware signature!  Send $5 if you use me, send $10 for manual!

	Sorry for such a short addition, but what more needs to be said?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Others are revolted, I am unmoved                      Steven J Owens @ CCI
 Gripped by desires, I am unmoved                    (716) 482-5000 Ext 2867
 Hearing the wisdom of sages, I am unmoved                 sjo@op632.cci.com
 I move only in my own way." - Lu Yu
From: cecchini@acsu.buffalo.edu (Julie A Cecchini)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: NRA Evaluation of Bush and Clinton
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:36:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UB

In article <1992Oct9.093602.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.190630.28538@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, clc5q@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) writes:
>> 
>> A recent article in a Richmond, VA, newspaper said that the NRA was holding out
>> on endorsing Bush because of his past sins, and because they hope to make him
>> work a little bit for an endorsement (i.e. make some new public commitments
>> regarding gun control.)  As a result, they are working primarily on creating
>> a Congress that can resist gun control efforts by Bill Clinton while pushing
>> Bush to do something to get an endorsement.
>> 
>
>My suggestion for the NRA is to support the Libertarian Party.  Marrou could
>use an extra 3 million votes.
>--Ray Cote

More than that...the NRA could use the incontrovertible stance of the
Libertarian Party.

Fewer people see The Libertarian Party as a "lunatic fringe" group
than many people here seem to think.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: Privileges and Rights. (was: Re: GORE...)
Organization: "Well, a head on top, an arm on each side, two legs...."
Date: 12 Oct 92 05:08:12 GMT

In <1992Oct8.164442.10551@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>In article <lairdb.718315415@crash>, lairdb@crash.cts.com
>(Laird P. Broadfield) writes:

>> Yes, BUT.  Under the citizen-shareholder concept, we are regulating your
>> activity on common property; you are welcome to exercise your right to
>> your heart's content on your own property.

>Ah, but you must be careful here!  Suppose I tell you that you have the
>right to speak, but only on *your own property*!  Now you cannot set up
>a soap box, and expound your views to the enlightenment of the public.
>You cannot distribute your papers beyond the boundry of your property.

>You have a right to a Jury trial, but only if you are not on public
>property...  You have protection against "searches and seizures",
>but not when you travel on public property...  (this may already be
>happening...; That your protections against searche and seizure are
>claimed to be invalid, because you're on public property).

>Here, you begin to tread dangerous ground.

Ah, not at all.  This is what the agreement between me and the government
(the Constitution) is all about: an agreement about how I may conduct
myself on the property-of-all-citizens which is administerd by the gov't.
Remember that the city park in which I set up my soap box *is* my
property, and yours (if you're a citizen), and hers, and his....
Once again: there is no such thing as "public" property, only things-
that-are-owned-entirely-by-me, things-that-are-owned-entirely-by-you,
and things-that-are-owned-by-both-of-us-as-shareholders.  The majority
of shareholders may indeed limit what I can say or do on our mutual
property, by passing regulations governing it.  The original Board of 
Directors wisely set up a system that makes it much more difficult
(Ammendments) to regulate some things.

Follow?

-- 
Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
Hi!  I'm a shareware signature!  Send $5 if you use me, send $10 for manual!
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: A Brady Bill Debate
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:19:22 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Oct12.214114.10486@iitmax.iit.edu>, technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Kevin Kadow) writes:
> 	The anti-gun people see it as a "reasonable" restriction that simply
> acts as a delay to prevent "crimes of passion" and provide time for a background
> check to "keep dangerous weapons from getting into the wrong hands".
> 
> 	The pro-gun people see it as an "unreasonable infringement of a 
> constitutional right" that won't stop criminals because "If they obey the law
> they wouldn't be criminals" and acts as a delay.

As always, the real answer is somewhere in the middle.  It might keep 
guns out of the hands of a few really STUPID criminals and/or a few 
psychologically-unfit individuals who are enough out-of-it to try buying
a gun at a dealer's.  And it's not necessarily an unreasonable infringement
of a constitutional right, except that no one can guarantee that when it
doesn't really affect the body count in America (and it won't) the "answer" 
won't be to make it unreasonable.

> They also point out that unlike
> Staggers the Brady Bill doesn't call for a mandatory check, and that it allows
> the police cheif to deny a purchase by simply pretending he never received the 
> application...

This, however, is old news.  That loophole is gone in the joint version.

> BTW, I have a question on the Brady Bill. If you live in a county or city where
> handguns are banned, and go to another county to buy an handgun, who gets your
> application? 

"the chief law enforcement officer of the place of residence of the
transferee"; i.e., your hometown chief.

> can your application be denied because possession of a handgun is
> illegal in your area of residence?

Sure.  "a report from a chief law enforcement officer containing information 
that receipt or possession of the handgun by the transferee violates Federal, 
State, or local law..." results in no sale.
-- 

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: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: The true defense of gun ownership
Keywords: Guns,Constitution,Militia
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 05:33:37 GMT

In article <9kmd4bv@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>>	Pardon me, but who in tarnation do you think makes up the  
>>   militia?

>The amendment says "A well-regulated militia ..."
>		      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Amendment says that a well-regulated militia is necessary, and that
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
From everything the framers wrote, they clearly though that _everyone_
who was physically capable was part of the militia. The Amendment,
therefore, says the the militia should be well trained and organized
and that the people in general (e.g. all the members of the militia)
have a protected right to arm themselves. If the government can
determin what constitutes "well-regulated" militias, and exclude
everyone else, what protection does the Amendment offer?

>The only legal
>well-regulated militia in this country that I know of is the National Guard.
>If you all know of other legal well-regulated militias in the U.S. I wish
>you'd stop maundering and name a couple.

If "well-regulated" means militias in accordance with all federal law on
the subject, _all_ males between the ages of 17 and 45 and all women with
previous military experience are part of a "well regulated militia." (See
Title 32, section 1 and/or Title 10, section 311 of the US federal code.)

Further, the National Guard is part of the federal army, not the militia
(although its members are _part_ of the militia, when the federal government
doesn't want them on duty...) At least according to a recent Supreme Court
ruling, Perpitch v. Department of Defense.

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder
From: ce0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Clifford Andrew Erickson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Need Mass. Voting Help......
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:52:16 GMT
Organization: Senior, Biology, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


Hello there;

    I just got my absentee ballot, and I need some info. as I am
currently going to school in Pittsburgh the NRA sent me the Pennsylvania
issue of American Rifleman with the rankings of Penna. candidates in it.
 I need the NRA grades for the representitive spots (Barney Frank-D,
Luke Lumina-IVP, Edward J. McCormick, III-R, Dennis J. Ingalls-FfL)
Actually I am only interested in Franks and McCormicks ratings as I
won't vote for the rest.  If the have county sheriff ratings please send
those for Clifford H. Marshall (D), and Paul F. Kelly (R).  If the
Councillor ratings are listed I need grades for Mike Murphy and Ed
Foley. Finally, if they list county comissioners please include a list
of the grades of the Norfolk County candidates.

Thanks a lot;
Cliff Erickson
ce0o@andrew.cmu.edu
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing army?
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:33:40 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <1992Oct14.182054.14642@mcs.anl.gov> shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov
(Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
>Not quite. The "Fire" situation would be analogous to not being allowed
>to shoot innocent people in a federal building (or anywhere else). I
>have no problem with this kind of gun control.
>
>If speech control were handled in the way that gun control is currently
>handled you would be required to leave your vocal cords in your home
>because you might go into a public place and might shout fire when there
>was no fire. Yes the "Fire" argument is stupid but it has been effective.

I agree.  I should be able to say whatever I want, wherever I want BUT
if I abuse that right and people get hurt, I should be made to face the
consequences of my actions.  Similarly, I should be able to own a gun
and only have unfriendly dealings with the law if I misuse the gun and
hurt people.

Now all we have to do is convince HCI of that... :)

   don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        "Democracy is the theory that the people
        know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
                -- H.L. Mencken
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Baldwin  -  Software Engineer  - e-mail to:  donb@tamri.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: Carry around the country (new)
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:18:31 GMT

>What do have to do to get some protection around this country!? 
        ^ you?

Short answer: Break the law
Long answer:  Usually break the law.


				mike
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:22218 alt.conspiracy:11335 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5504 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6983
From: cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Focused on Infinity)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Date: 16 Oct 1992 08:42:25 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucscb.ucsc.edu

>For those that appreciate irony...Wilson was reelected in 1916 on the
>platform "He kept us out of war."  Being a lame duck, he renounced this
>position in 1917.
Um... Wilson wasn't a lame duck yet. The two-term limit was not imposed
until after Roosevelt. 
-- 
..___... ...___... ...___... ...___... ...___... ...___... ...___... ...___...
Marc Reeve
cmraman@ucscb.ucsc.edu	cmraman@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us
"Dragon with matches loose on the town
Takes a whole pail of water just to cool him down."

Naturally my opinions are unheard by UCSC, as it is a bureaucratic monolith.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ctdonath@rodan.syr.EDU (Carl T. Donath)
Subject: Re: Freaks And Self-Defense
In-reply-to: holger@vmars.tuwien.ac.at's message of Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:11:10 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University
	<1992Oct12.151110.19830@email.tuwien.ac.at>
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 15:30:10 EDT


   And I bet 10:1 that the car theft/assault/etc. rate at Knob Creek
   is somewhat below average for the duration of the gathering... :-|

   >How about the several hundred thousand cops and other armed agents?
   >Granted that many of them are slobs of the first order and do indeed
   >shoot LOTS of innocent people every year, but your average beat cop
   >does not seem to murdering civilians by the dozen as would be expected
   >by those who claim that EvilAssaultHandguns(tm) cause people to become
   >blood thirsty homicidal psychopaths.

   Well, granted that guns make it easier for maniacs to kill people, they
   make it easier to stop maniacs, too.  If only one person had been armed
   at the Killeen (sp?) shooting, woe to the loonie.

Wasn't there a case recently where some freak started shooting in a 
restaurant, and someone shot back, preventing another mass execution
(the type that the media loves)?
--
  __________/ ctdonath@rodan.acs.syr.edu  Carl T Donath \________________
 / Why do people assume that this is the first time things have ever     \
/ been this way and things will stay this way forever?                    \
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: The true defense of gun ownership
Summary: Second Ammendment worng, Ninth Ammendment right.
Keywords: Guns,Constitution,Militia
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 12:07:00 GMT

First let me tell you that I am a Libertarian and no great lover of
Government interference in the private lives of citizens. However...

However, I am distressed by the willful misunderstanding of the second
ammendment to the U.S. Constitution. This ammendment is about militias,
not private gun ownership.

If you pro-gun guys want to invoke the U.S. Constitution, then use the
ninth ammendment. Since the right to life is not ennumerated, but is
assumed, then the right to life can not be disparaged. Therefore, any
means used to defend one's life cannot be prohiibited. This is logical and
much more reasonable. From this point of view, one can defend having a
handgun in the house, and still regulate against keeping an A-Bomb or a
Stinger Missile in our basement.

Conan the Libertarian rjk@world.std.com
"If you can't love the Constitution, at least hate the Government"
From: gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: New York City Draft Riots of 1863
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:04:31 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In an earlier set of postings, which discussed the American Civil War
as a side topic, I made a passing reference to these riots. Some
people mailed me and either called me a liar or asked for more info.
I don't want to get into a detailed discussion of this here, since
this is t.p.g, but I'd like to give enough information to back it up
and point interested people in a direction. I'll excerpt a few paragraphs
from the jacket of a book about it:

For five days in July 1863, at the height of the Civil War, New York City
was under seige. Angry rioters burned draft offices, closed factories,
destroyed railroad tracks and telegraph lines, and hunted policemen and
soldiers. Before long, the rioters turned their murderous wrath against
the black community. In the end, at least 105 people were killed, making
the draft riots the most violent insurrection in American history.

In this vividly written book, Iver Bernstein tells the compelling
story of the New York City draft riots. He details how what began as 
a demonstration against the first federal draft soon expanded into a
sweeping assault against the local institutions and personnel of Abraham
Lincoln's Republican Party as well as a grotesque race riot. Bernstein
identifies participants, dynamics, causes and consequences, and demonstrates
that the "winners" and "losers" of the July 1863 crisis were anything
but clear, even after five battle-hardened regiments rushed north from
Gettysburg to bring order to the streets of the city.

The New York City Draft Riots
Iver Bernstein
ISBN 0-19-505006-1
-- 
The War on Drugs is just part of the War on the US Constitution.
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: My response to newspaper bias - Part I
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 18:37:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: N/I

In article <1992Oct07.165813.20843@microsoft.com> alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:
>mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030) writes:
>>
>  [discussing his local newspaper]
>>
>>before receiving a permit to purchase a handgun). The N&D reports every week 
>>the names and addresses of the people that receive permits from the county 
>>sheriff. So I know they have access to that information. 
>
>It sure is nice of the local newspaper to provide the criminal
>community with a shopping list of homes in which they can find
>guns to steal.  And giving them the name of the people who live
>there is even better -- they can get the phone number and call
>ahead to make sure nobody's home.
>
>I love it when the media behaves responsibly.

Perhaps someone should nominate the weekly list of new
pistol permit holders to be NRA Freedom Associates ...   :-)
From: cc697@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Eric Oppen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: RKRB .sigs
Date: 8 Oct 1992 10:51:54 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: cc697@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Eric Oppen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn) says:

>In article <1992Sep30.150550.24233@u.washington.edu>
>toby@carson.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw) writes:
>>Several people have suggested that a collection of .sig lines on
>>the right to keep and read books might be amusing.  Here are some
>>of mine, and I'm looking forward to additions from the net.
>
>From my random .sig file:
>
>"You didn't hear Elliot Ness whining about Al Capone's machine gun."
>-- Leroy Pyle on Assault Rifles
>
>"The 2nd amendment was never intended to allow private citizens to
> 'keep and bear arms'.  If it had, there would have been wording such as
> 'the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'"
>-- Ken Konecki on Usenet, on 27 Jul 1992
>-- 
>
Hey!  You forgot mine!  *pout pout*  Why?  Could it be---SATAN?
(No, probably the fact that I don't post as much as I'd like.)
In any case, see below.

-- 
Note to the Constitutionally impaired:  "...the RIGHT of the people to KEEP
and BEAR arms..." means EXACTLY what it says!
Vote Libertarian, Grassroots, or any third party...the Demopublicans are a
bipartisan evil!        "Technomad"  cc697@cleveland.freenet.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mjp@austin.ibm.com (Michael Phelps)
Subject: Anyone have a copy of Bush's (ex) Crime Bill?
Originator: mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 10:54:33 GMT
Reply-To: mjp@vnet.ibm.com (Michael J. Phelps)
Organization: IBM Kingston NY


The subject sez it all.. is there a copy of Bush's Crime
Bill online?  thanks

-- 
Michael Phelps, (external) mjp@vnet.ibm.com ..
                (internal)  mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com .. mjp at kgnvmy         
 (and last but not least a disclaimer)  These opinions are mine..       
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns