HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment Myths
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:43:41 GMT
Organization: Twilight Zone

In article <1992Sep2.171217.25782@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

	[After reams of supporting evidence is provided, not once, but
	several times, ]
>			rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:

>>So far, nobody has been able
>>to supply me with a shred of evidence in favor of the "well-regulated"
>>interpretation as "well-trained".

	Well, looks like another candidate to sworn in as a brand new
	citizen of my kill file.  Just don't have the time for this
	kind of inane and dishonest nonsense.  Adios to you sir.

	-Andy V.
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Police Approval?  Why?
Date: 27 Aug 1992 05:57:39 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: lightning.berkeley.edu
Keywords: HR5633

In article <1992Aug26.222518.18377@iitmax.iit.edu> draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn) writes:
>How did the police ever get into the business of administively
>controlling guns by giving permission, rather than by enforcing laws
>about guns?

Generally, if there are local laws restricting something (like zoning laws
and building a factory, for example) you have to go through the appropriate
branch of the local government. I guess people who passed gun control laws
assumed a connection between crime and guns, so they considered the police
department to the appropriate group. 

						      Frank Crary
						      (even though I'm
						      still using my
						      Berkeley account....)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Keywords: n
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Distribution: ca
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:54:34 GMT

In article <71614@apple.Apple.COM> vossron@Apple.COM (Ronald N. Voss) writes:
>fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) writes:
>[f/i == fatalities/injuries]
>
>>If the rate of f/i due to the guns affected by a given law go down, but
>>the overall rate of f/i stays the same or rises (if the guns in question
>>are replaced by more lethal weapons), the the law in question would be
>>damaging.
>
>So I'm to conclude that *if* guns were unavailable, that criminals
>would switch to other lethal means (knives, poisons, explosives, pick
>one) and overall f/i rates would remain the same?  Doesn't it have
>something to do with how *easy* it is pull a trigger from relativly far
>away?

Considering that members of the relevant population, criminal gun
users, have a history of using OTHER weapons, we shouldn't assume that
they wouldn't do so.  But, Voss must assume that to make his "maybe
they'll just stay home" argument.

If we look at their "take", it is reasonable to believe that the
number of incidents would actually INCREASE whenever substitution
occurs.  More injuries, more deaths, and all on the weaker members
of society.  What a deal.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: rrw@philabs.philips.com (Roger White)
Subject: Re: CLINTON NEW TEXT: GUN CONTROL
Organization: Philips Laboratories, Briarcliff Manor, NY.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:20:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.181120.13669@dg-rtp.dg.com> meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) writes:
>In article <viking.714451326@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>>	If this is true, I may just vote for Bush.  Why?  I planned
>>on voting Libertarian, but if this extreme is what the Clinton/Gore
>>ticket can assure me, perhaps I'm better off voting so they lose
>>rather than so all of them get the message?  There's always '96 for
>>voting Libertarian, but by then what else will I have lost if my
>>vote didn't help defeat what we all saw?
>
>My own opinion on this election is that Bush has been operating on the
>"gun owners have nowhere else to go" theory.  I would like him to get
>the message that it doesn't work.  So Marrou gets my vote this time.
>(Whether my message actually gets through is another issue ...   :-)
>

Oh yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense.  In order to send Bush a message,
vote for Marrou so that it's a sure thing for Clinton who you KNOW is gonna
screw you!  At least with Bush as president we have a chance.

>Anyway, votes for/against Congress are much more important this year.

Certainly important but maybe not "much more."

Although I ain't happy about it, Bush gets my vote.  Clinton et.al. have
already announced they're out to get us.  I ain't too thrilled about D'Amato
here in New York either but I sure as hell ain't gonna vote for Ferraro who
looks like she'll be running against him for the Senate seat.  Not great
choices but what can ya do?

Take care,

Rog
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Time to Fight
Date: 2 Sep 92 21:19:17 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <viking.715303653@vincent1.iastate.edu>, viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
> >	What if a crook busted my door down?  Would you not say i'd be pert
> >	near justified in shooting?  I can't tell who's real and who ain't in
> >	a tenth of a second, and so sometimes a person must simply ACT.  When
> >	the prima fascia aspect of a situation says "LIFE OR DEATH" and things
> >	are hapening quickly, a person is well justified in shooting.  Why
> >	should anyone risk death for the sake of some cops who feel they must
> >	do the Rambo thing?  That's simply insane.
> 
> 	Agreed.  What I'm interested in knowing is this: what does it take
> to give you reason to hold your fire in this case?  Badges?  Badges and
> uniforms? 

How about a warrant, for starters?  THEN a badge and a uniform to deliver 
it.  If they haven't announced themselves and presented a warrant, anybody 
who busts in my door should NOT be there.

As you say, 

> Of course, we should note that a hostage situation
> may require an invasion without warning

However, since I have no hostage situations going on in my house, a 
no-knock entry is never justified there, and anyone breaking in takes
his chances.  

No-knocks are very, very dangerous things for the police to be doing.  
If they insist on doing them, they had better get them right.  Right 
now, it is safer for the police to do no-knocks on the wrong house 
than on the right one.  Small wonder it's becoming a problem.
-- 

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: jca@crash.cts.com (John C. Archambeau)
Subject: Re: Reading Brady
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:41:24 PDT

cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
> jca@crash.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes:
>> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>>> I'm confused, guys.  I can't see that the Brady Bill is saying what 
>>> some of you folks say it does.
>> 
>> Post the original text.  I don't want YOUR interpretation. 
>
>Jesus, John -- "Thank You For Your Support."

That's what part of this fight is all about.  Don't ever let someone
else think for you.  If you resort to that mentality, it's time to hang
up your gunbelt and go into the little cage HCI has waiting for you.

>I HAVE posted the relevant portions of this text, a couple of times.

Granted, I was out of town, county and state last weekend.  But no where
in my catching up with the news did I see a posting of your version of
the Brady Bill just your interpretation of the various clauses.  If I
missed it, my apologies.

>As explained previously, the "original text" I have and the "original
>text" other people have differ by one clause -- mine doesn't have the
>clause requiring the chief to acknowledge receipt of the BC request.
>My text is the one passed by the House, while other people's text is
>the one originally submitted to the House.  No word on the Senate
>version, except that it is known to differ in at least one instance:
>"seven days" is "five business days."

Either way, I hope the bill dies.  Because it will be another inch we've
given into HCI which means they'll try to take another 5 miles.
--

     // JCA

 /*
 ** ARPA    : crash!jca@nosc.mil | 13 + 1 = 228... 
 ** INTERNET: jca@crash.cts.com  |
 ** UUCP    : crash!jca          |           SIG-Sauer P228
 */
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Re: RKBA - are you missing the point?
Date: 1 Sep 92 21:01:54 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / rwojcik@bcsaic.boeing.com (Rick Wojcik) / 11:19 am  Aug 28, 1992 /
>Correct.  The courts have the right to interpret the law.  If you disagree with
>the court verdict, which may be a jury verdict, then you have no further
>recourse.  And, BTW, the Supreme Court can overturn jury rulings.  There are
>no juries at that level.

It is my understanding that reviews of court cases do NOT review the FACTS
of the case, only the PROCEDURES.  Thus, while a jury trial can be invalidated
because of a procedural error, the jury can't be arbitrarily reversed nor 
can you be convicted by a higher court.  The most they can do is uphold 
a lower court jury verdict.

This is one way  people can occasionally be screwed.  If you have a bad 
lawyer/luck and you don't get evidence introduced that should be, the 
appeals won't take notice of that evidence unless you can win a new trial 
on some technicality.

Rick.

BTW, this applies to CRIMINAL law, not as sure about civil law.  Also not 
sure what the powers of the supreme court are in all cases.
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Guns, and the necessity to trust our governement.
Keywords: guns and freedom, inextricably linked
Date: 24 Aug 92 02:57:44 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Aug23.230124.16509@microsoft.com> marcmil@microsoft.com 
(Marc Milanini) writes:
>Have a look in the edition of the Anchorage Daily News of Monday, July
>6th, in the section guns, and tell me what you think of it. There is
>an ad saying "Uzi, M16, SKS, M14. Package, $ 1,800" and then a phone
>number.  

Call the number and ask him what you'll have to do to buy them.  You'll
find out that you'll have to have the signature of your local chief,
$200 for a transfer tax payment, and several months for an FBI background
check.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Organization: none
	<LAMBERT.92Aug27012957@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<PA142548.253.714853818@utkvm1.utk.edu>
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:04:02

>>>>> On 26 Aug 92 18:30:18 GMT, PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) said:

> In article <LAMBERT.92Aug27012957@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au> lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
>>Bill Gray said:
>>(1) You want to ban all guns.
>>(2) A gun is the most effective defence against rape.
>>(3) Therefore you require woman to passively acquiesce to rape.
>>(4) Therefore you are telling them to "lean back and enjoy it".
>>
>>I reply:
>>(1) is false.
> No it is not.  You have advoacted blanket gun bans on several occasions.

Nonsense.  Please point to an article where I have done this.  I can
send you a copy of everything I have ever posted if you wish.

>>There is no evidence for (2).
> Sure there is.  Check the FBI uniform crime report for 1990 (lastest 
> available to me).  Of those methods used when assaulted, self-defense with a 
> firearms is the most effective.

Oh, very well.  I should have written "no good evidence".  Those
figures you mention are for assaults, not rapes, and we don't know
whether other differences between the groups "with gun defenders" and
the rest could have caused the differences in effectiveness,  (That's
the "guns do not stop crimes, people do" argument, if you haven't
spotted the parallel.)

>>"medical data shows that a
>>gun is no more deadly than a knife", etc etc.
> That is skewed.  The initial survival rates for firearm-related wounds are 
> lower than for knives, but the "slow-kill" rate for knives is higher.

The medical data in question is the mortality rate for patients who
live long enough to be admitted to hospital, so does not include the
"quick-kills".  The mortality rate for gun shot wounds is 3-5 times
that for knife wounds.

Tim

Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:20423 alt.society.civil-disob:94
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.society.civil-disob
Subject: So Much for Iowa.... (Was: Black Market guns)
Date: 1 Sep 92 20:40:03 GMT
	<viking.715306690@vincent1.iastate.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <viking.715306690@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

<	   Don Baldwin was visiting Iowa this past week, and when I mentioned
<   that rifles and shotguns were sold at K-mart, he didn't believe it.  So I
<   took him to K-mart and showed him.  While I was there, I bought some .30-30
<   ammunition as it will be a few weeks until I can get back to my reloading
<   press.  Guess what?

	Sure, K-Mart sells rifles, shotguns and handguns here, too.
	Wal-Mart does also. Some of the local gun stores are hacked
	at that, as those big boys can undercut the small stores
	on prices of a few very popular shotguns/rifles.

<	   Ammunition that can be fired in a pistol, when sold, must be
<   recorded along with the buyers name, ssn, address, and the like.  

	Huh. Iowa gets crossed off the list of free states;
	this isn't Federal.

<I did
<   not have this problem when I bought 12ga shotshells, nor when buying
<   black powder.  

	When was the last time you bought black powder? BATF
	reclassified it as a Class 2 explosive a couple of years
	back; which is why most stores don't carry it anymore
	unless they have the appropriate bunker.

<I took a look at the ammunition covered, and it's a huge
<   variety.  Everything from .22LR to .30-30 to 7mm Remington Magnum.  Who
<   shoots these with a pistol?  All populat rounds are presented.  Of notable
<   exception was the 10mm round, and the .454 Casull.  Obviously, neither of
<   these are shot in pistols, right?

	Duh.

<	   I hate to think the government can know for the next two years that
<   I have a .30-30, be it rifle or pistol.  How did this one get by?

	Sounds like a question for the Iowa Statehouse.
		
	However, doesn't Iowa have a waiting period and background
	check for handgun sales as well? 

	Just curious....
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: TV, Violence, The Commish
Organization: Twilight Zone
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:50:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.144500.8914@stortek.com> vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak) writes:

> If _TJ_Hooker_ really shot as many people as was portrayed in that show, 
>LA would have zero population growth.

	More like zero population...

	-Andy V.
From: marcmil@microsoft.com (Marc Milanini)
Subject: Re: Guns, and the necessity to trust our governement.
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:01:24 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Keywords: guns and fascism

In article <66614@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox) writes:
>In <1992Aug23.010331.15464@microsoft.com> marcmil@microsoft.com (Marc Milanini) writes:
>>Whereas in the USA, you can buy M16s by reading ads in the newspapers.
>>We agree that European countries have less criminality than the USA.
>>As a matter of fact, thay also have harscher control on guns...
>
>Uh, reality check:
>I assume from the microsoft.com address you are in America, but I can't
>reconcile that with the statement above. Last I checked, M16's
>are honest-to-gosh fully-automatic military assault rifles. Not only
>would I be extrememly unlikely to see one advertised, it would be
>rather difficult to buy one at all. I suppose ads for enlisting
>in the military might show a soldier holding one.

Have a look in the edition of the Anchorage Daily News of Monday, July
6th, in the section guns, and tell me what you think of it. There is
an ad saying "Uzi, M16, SKS, M14. Package, $ 1,800" and then a phone
number.  

>Sorry to inject reality into your little fantasy world where some 20,000+
>federal and state gun regulations don't exist, but one should be careful
>about flying off "half-cocked". Hollywood very efficiently depicts
>America as a land dripping with blood and Uzi-toting criminals.
>Fortunately for the tenants, it's not true.

I don't read newspapers often, but when I do, I often find interesting
things. It is the first time I can see a section "Guns" in a 
newspaper. 

As for your last statement, I would mostly agree with it. However,
the USA is the industrialized country with the highest level of
gun crimes.

>-- 
>The War on Drugs is just part of the War on the US Constitution. 

-- 
=---K8>>@@@@@@@@ Marc Milanini @@@@ marcmil@microsoft.com @@@@%%
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Black Market guns
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 00:18:10 GMT

In article <6#gnvkn.nagle@netcom.com> nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:

>       I've given up on gun control, but ammo control has possibilities.
>Ammo has a shelf life.

	Don Baldwin was visiting Iowa this past week, and when I mentioned
that rifles and shotguns were sold at K-mart, he didn't believe it.  So I
took him to K-mart and showed him.  While I was there, I bought some .30-30
ammunition as it will be a few weeks until I can get back to my reloading
press.  Guess what?

	Ammunition that can be fired in a pistol, when sold, must be
recorded along with the buyers name, ssn, address, and the like.  I did
not have this problem when I bought 12ga shotshells, nor when buying
black powder.  I took a look at the ammunition covered, and it's a huge
variety.  Everything from .22LR to .30-30 to 7mm Remington Magnum.  Who
shoots these with a pistol?  All populat rounds are presented.  Of notable
exception was the 10mm round, and the .454 Casull.  Obviously, neither of
these are shot in pistols, right?

	I hate to think the government can know for the next two years that
I have a .30-30, be it rifle or pistol.  How did this one get by?

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: RKBA - are you missing the point?
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:16:49 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Aug28.183032.16955@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) writes:
> >And thus, Juries have the power to interpret the Constitution (and the power
> >to refuse to enforce any law they find offensive).
> 
> 	On paper, yes, but I'm not so sure that your stomping into court and
> 	informing the jury of their right to nullify a law that they find
> 	disagreeable would not land you in the slammer on some horse shit
> 	charge like contempt or what have you and perhaps find you with a
> 	mis-trial in your lap.

Indeed.  However, it is your right to stand outside the courthouse and
leaflet those entering with FIJA brochures on jury selection day.  You
need no authorization or permission, and you cannot be stopped.  You
probably should avoid leafletting anyone wearing any indication that 
they are ALREADY empaneled on a jury.

If YOU are on a jury, you have the right to inform the other jurors of
the principle of jury nullification; however, it is not recommended that 
you do this as a FIRST resort.  Certainly, if you hear a majority of the
jurors expressing opinions on the order of, "Gee, this really seems unfair,
but I guess we have to convict him," it's time to carefully play the card.
-- 

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...
From: PATE@VXC.UNCWIL.EDU (BILL PATE, ADMIN. SERVICES, PATE@VXC.UNCWIL.EDU)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: hurricane aftermath
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:55:40 GMT

NBC had an interesting program last night called DATELINE. They interviewed
several people in the Miami area in their wrecked neighborhoods, including
one of their local correspondants. Some interesting shots of homeowners
patroling with firearms in the absence of any law enforcement. One was of
an 8 year old girl sitting in front of a pile of rubble with what I think
was a Street Sweeper, identified by the reporter as a shotgun. Looked like 
a repeat of the LA police abandoment of their citizens. I was wondering
what the next round of anti-gun debates will sound like. A lot of citizens,
formerly somewhat neutral, will likely take a stronger stance next time.
From: leone@GANDALF.SSW.COM (Bob Leone)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Hurricane Andrew
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:25:58 GMT

re: looters with military-style weapons
hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
>Sorry, Ed, but this story sets off my BS alert.

The truth may be somewhere between the two.

It has been established that in the LA riots, street gangs took part in
the looting, particularly in places like gun stores which had stuff
which could be sold at a good price on the street. The gangs have
_good_ weapons.

I doubt they would be interested in looting lower-middle-class homes in
the area. But certain stores and upper-class homes would be a different
story.

Bob Leone (leone@gandalf.ssw.com)
(The opinions expressed are my own.)

    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.  The strongest reason
    for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last
    resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
	   - Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, June 1776
	     1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 29 Aug 92 20:38:08 CDT

>Not necessarily.  There are NO domestic sources of cocaine and
>diversion from legal suppliers is negligible, yet the illegal
>availability is nearly universal.  (I'm sure that there's some place
>in the US where cocaine isn't readily available, but that's just
>because most everything possible happens in the US.)  There is
>negligible diversion from legal manufacture of a number of other
>drugs, yet illegal manufacture is adequate.

We can't keep drugs out of out prisons, and yet some people believe
that we can keep drugs out of our country, let alone non-consumables
like guns.


sean rutledge                              murphy was an optimist!!!
sean@cae.wisc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: BATF Billboard
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:27:03 GMT


How's this for the _TRUTH_ (tm) that appeared in the August 31, 1992
Chicago Defender?

[Photo, page 8]

Picture of a billboard with an international slashout symbol layed
on top of a Colt M1911A1 on the left. On the right:

		GANGS, GUNS,
		  DRUGS...
		
	HAD ENOUGH?
	
	call 1-800-ATF-GUNS
	
(BATF Insignia) U.S. TREASURY DEPT. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO & FIREARMS

----------

The caption is as follows:

The fight against guns

Pictured is one of the 20 anti-gun billboards donated by the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the Patrick Media Group. The 12 X 25
foot billboards are to be on display in inner-cities communities
for a month.

----------

Finally, the news media calls a spade a spade!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:20175 soc.culture.usa:6896 alt.society.civil-liberty:5607