HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula)
Subject: Re: 20/20 to crucify FFL holders
Keywords: FFL, criminals getting FFLs, HCI agenda
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:02:46 GMT

In article <Bz6F7n.Kq6@world.std.com> eclipse@world.std.com (Mark Urbin) writes:
>on the applicants.  Then they went on to complain that the BATF didn't have
>enough enforcement power and recent actions by Congress limited the power of
>the BATF.  The problem with this is that the two have nothing to do with 
>each other.  The report went on to say that the BATF sent renewable forms to
>convicted felons.  The impression I got was that BATF wants to look where the
>light is better, not were they dropped the quarter.  If they were to clean up
>the application screening process, they would have to do less 'no-knock' raids
>in the future.  I do understand though that paperwork is much less macho than
>knocking in citizens doors.
>

Incidently, did anyone else happen to notice that one of the "evil
dealers" they cameoed seemed to have only the deadly Colt black powder assault
revolvers in evidence?

I thought that they made a point of *saying* some reasonable things, but
made every effort to have their background stories and material 
(lots of emotionalism with the dead girls poems, etc.) point to the
need for draconian measures. The "most dealers are honest" seemed to
be a damning with faint praise effort at most. Also, they never mentioned
*why* the ATF had become the subject of Congressional scrutiny. I also
thought (at one point anyway) that applying for an FFL automatically
lead to an FBI background check?

I thought the whole thing was pretty heavily biased and misleading.

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

        "If it's in the paper it must be true!" --- D. Doright 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: "Mr. Saturday Night Special" (Was: Andy Freeman vs Random House Dictionary (was: Nabbing a car thief))
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:25:06 GMT

In <ATAYLOR.92Dec17095831@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

>	And here's another definition:

>	"Mr. Saturday Night Special
>	 Got a barrel that's blue and cold
>	 Ain't good for nothin'
>	 But put a man six feet in a hole"
>				----Lynard Skynard

	Strangely enough, if you listen to the song you'll find that the
shootings mentioned all happened while the shooter was drunk, or found his
wife making the sign of the three-toed aardvark with somebody else.  The
price quoted in the song?  $20 dollars.  Yeah, right.

	For those conspiracy theorists out there, I answered one of those
ads on TV for "compilation" tapes.  You know, K-tel presents the Greatest
Rock Hits of June, 1981 sort of stuff.  This one looked like something I'd
like, so I ordered it.  Saturday Night Special is the second song on side
one, and the tape was presented by Time, Inc.

	Then again, the first song was "Cat Scratch Fever" by Ted Nugent,
a rather outspoken hunter, conservative, and musician.

< 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                    >
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: 20/20 to crucify FFL holders
Date: 13 Dec 1992 17:35:37 GMT
Organization: Hand Held Products, Inc.
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: dale.handheld.com

In article <jrh.2b296c8f-e@mustang.dell.com> jrh@mustang.dell.com (Randy  
Howard) writes:
> >The ABC show 20/20 this Friday at 10 PM will target the "Evil FFL
> >holder" and how easy it is to get a license to traffic in arms to
> >the criminal community.
> 
> I just watched the show, and it wasn't as offensive as I thought it would be.
> The main thrust was about how easy it was to obtain an FFL, with an alias, or
> even as a Felon, because the qualification process is so easy.  Also, they
> used a few cases of FFL's being used to purchase illegal firearms for gang
> warfare, etc.  

I missed that part, how did they purchase "illegal" weapons with the FFL?  Do  
you mean the 'Saturday Night Specials' the ABC team bought with thier FFL in  
MD?  A different law was broken, in doing so, the FFL served no special  
purpose.

> Of course, they use that 'Saturday Night Special' magic word,
> how could they resist?
> 
Seemed pretty bad to me, overall.  There was the "This is the gun that killed  
poor mister so-and-so" scene, no mention that that gun had been held by  
someone, and that mister so-and-so was actually killed by a projectile fired  
from that gun, while the gun was aimed, etc.  The gun is actually totally  
innocent.  "You'll be outraged!" they promised in the teasers. 

ALL the examples shown were of the "see how I can break other, existing, laws,  
now that I have my license to sell guns!" type.  So I guess the message is,  
make it harder to get a dealer license so folks won't go on to break those  
other laws. 

Liberal mush-brain thinking at it's best.

> 
> -- 
> Randy Howard            _o	    @'s: jrh@dell.com
> Dell Computer Corp.     \<,	    !'s: ...!uunet!dellunix!jrh
> ______________________()/ ()______________________________________________
> 

Jim

--
Jim De Arras            | The opinions expressed herein are
Hand Held Products, Inc.| not necessarily those of Hand 
804.784.3090 voice      | Held Products, Inc., and may not 
804.784.3147 FAX        | even be mine. Use at your own risk
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: ALERT! Anti-gun meeting in NoVA
Date: 17 Dec 1992 18:59:26 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: redondo.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Dec17.174211.19746@gmuvax2.gmu.edu>, amcmicha@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Andrew McMichael) writes:
> In article <1857@tnc.UUCP> m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY) writes:
> >

[deleted]

> 1. Thanks for letting me know so I ccan show up and voice my
> support. [for stronger laws regulating handguns, that is.
> 
> 2. Yeah,  Heinlein sure was a nut, wasn't he.

Another voice from the land of the clueless.
 

> -- 
> Andrew McMichael
> George Mason University
> Fairfax, Va
> amcmicha@gmuvax2.gmu.edu

-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.culture.japan
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: New Libertarian Gun Control Book
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 10:50:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.104407.25821@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}In article <1992Dec16.015104.19925@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
}}Kopel's book can also be ordered from the NRA. Phone number is given
}}in the American Rifleman which I don't have access to right now.
}
}Ah, good to know.
}
}}The information in this book about the legal systems of other
}}countries is compelling in its own right.
}
}It certainly is.  I've just about finished the third chapter, on Canada,
}titled "Love of Government."

Thought I'd provide the endorsements from the back cover while I'm at it:

"A superb piece of scholarshp, admirable for its integrity and painstaking
reearch.  Kopel prvodes the fresh air of reason in a national debate too
often marked by acrimony and prejudice." - Tom Clancy (the fascist drug
prohibitionist!)

"If one looks on the (gun-control) debate as being only about crime and
the equipment with which it is committed, one misses the entire point: the
'debate' ove guns is fundamentally a cultural and political debate, and
Kopel gets high marks for driving that point home." - James D. Wright,
Department of Sociology, Tulane University

"Kopel's careful study puts beyond doubts what scholars in the field have
argued for years - that the weapons-violence hypothesis is far too simplistic
a basis on which to base sound public policy." - David D. Polsby, Professor
of Law, Northwestern University Law School

"In this superbly documented and persuasively argued book, Kopel does more
than demonstate why gun contols would not work in America; he reminds us
that legal controls ought to support, not replace, self-control." - Thomas
S. Szasz, Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry, SUNY Health Science Center

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Andy Freeman vs Random House Dictionary (was: Nabbing a car thief)
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:27:31 GMT

In article <LAMBERT.92Dec15034901@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>,
lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:

> >>>>> On Sun, 13 Dec 1992 03:21:42 GMT, cescript@mtu.edu 
> (Charles Scripter) said:

Someone wrote:

> >> I have total incontrovertable proof of this: J.J. gave
> >>     this definition of "saturday night special" in episode of "Good Times".

To which I responded:

> > And obviously J.J. is a linguist....

Then Tim says:

> Oh I see, only linguists are qualified to define words.

The claim was that "total incontrovertable proof" was presented.  Now
I suspect that "J.J." has no qualifications other than being a public
figure.  A definition provided by a linguist _may_ carry more weight
(at least a linguist is trained in the field under discussion).  A
definition provided by a public figure can hardly be construed as
"total incontrovertable proof".  (otherwise I'll mail Ronald Reagan a
letter and ask him to define a SNS differently, I'm sure he'll oblige ;-).

> If that is
> the case, why don't you and Andy who are not linguists accept the
> definition provided by the linguists hired by Random House.

Because I believe the linguists hired by Webster's instead.  Since there
is a clash between definitions provided by different groups of linguists,
then I can only assume that the definition is not widely accepted.

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Thursday, 17 Dec 1992 09:48:20 EST
From: <JCEHC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Mail Order SKS
 <92351.141413JCEHC@CUNYVM.BITNET> <1992Dec17.011735.10896@socrates.umd.edu>

In article <1992Dec17.011735.10896@socrates.umd.edu>, ice@socrates.umd.edu
(Fredrik Nyman) says:
>
>resident, and there are no restrictions on gun purchases in Montana,
>the Massachusetts FID requirement apparently didn't apply; only
>Massachusetts residents need FIDs.  This is, of course, if the buyer
>can legally buy the same gun in his home state, which was the case
>here.
>
>At least that's how the gun store owner interpreted the regulations,
>and as far as I know, MA officials haven't challenged that
>interpretation.
>
>The NRA, however, has, and claims that as a student, the guy should
>have been considered a Mass. resident.
>
>I don't know who is right.

   My understanding of the Firearms Owners Protection Act is that the buyer
must comply with the laws in each state.  So if one state requires an
ID card as Mass does, the buyer must have that FID card.  In live in New
Jersey which also requires an FID card for longarm purchases and I know
that non NJ residents cannot purchase longarms in NJ without that ID
card.  I suspect Mass is the same.  A rule of thumb with regards to gun
laws, if you're not absolutely sure something is legal, you should act
as if it's not.My bet is that this dealer is gonna fry.

Michael Gordon
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: amcmicha@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Andrew McMichael)
Subject: Re: ALERT! Anti-gun meeting in NoVA
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Va.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:42:11 GMT

In article <1857@tnc.UUCP> m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY) writes:
>
>There is a meet-your-delegates hearing and reception at the Fairfax
>Government Center in the Fair Oaks section of the County on Tuesday,
>December 8, 1992 from 7:30-9:30pm.
[lots of stuff deleted]
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>"...I am opposed to all attempts to license or restrict the arming of
>individuals...I consider such laws a violation of civil liberty, 
>subversive of democratic political institutions, and self-defeating
>in their purpose."
>        - Robert Heinlein, in a 1949 letter concerning "Red Planet"
>-- 

1. Thanks for letting me know so I ccan show up and voice my
support. [for stronger laws regulating handguns, that is.

2. Yeah,  Heinlein sure was a nut, wasn't he.


-- 
Andrew McMichael
George Mason University
Fairfax, Va
amcmicha@gmuvax2.gmu.edu
From: bz269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James D. Del Vecchio)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Downside to FFL?
Date: 18 Dec 1992 07:59:35 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bz269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James D. Del Vecchio)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, richa@grizzly.CNA.TEK.COM (Grizzly Amber) says:

>There are more downsides to obtaining an FFL. In my case, I have one
>for Gunsmithing, which also allows you to retail guns. But I do
>not have a storefront to work from. I work from my house. You must
>have some hours you are "open to the public" (however, this can be
>by appointment only). The big downside, besides listing all my private
>collection in the bound acquisition-disposition record, is that my
>entire house is subject to BATF search as a business premises.
>If they want to go through my underwear drawer, they have that right
>because it is within the premises from which I conduct business.


	If you have things that you would prefer remain private in 
that you can not tolerate a search of your FFL premises, then being
an FFL is possibly something you could regret.  If you can live with
this, then it is great, and there is no reason not to get one, especialy
now when they are planning to get rid of the option.

Jim Del Vecchio
From: case1@husc4.harvard.edu (John Case)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Parents of slain youth continue signature dri
Keywords: Yoshihiro Hattori's parents have mush for brains
Date: 18 Dec 92 22:05:59 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Dec17.220909.15637@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.010501.6249@bluemoon.use.com> grant@bluemoon.use.com
>(Grant DeLorean) writes:
>>>	TOKYO (UPI) -- The parents of a Japanese exchange student shot dead in
>>>October presented U.S. Ambassador Michael Armacost Tuesday with a
>>>petition calling for tighter gun control laws in the United States.
>>
>> I am sorry for their tragedy, but what the hell right do they have
>>to tell us what to do?
>
>Agreed, it makes no sense.
>
>>>	``We want the Americans to discuss whether possessing guns is really
>>>necessary,'' she said.
>>
>> We have, it is.
>
>More to the point, the whole issue of whether we should be "allowed" to
>possess guns is a moot one.  What do the Handgun Control, Inc  people think
>would happen if they got a law passed, revoking the Second Amendment?  Do they
>expect us to just meekly comply?
>
>    don

Even more to the point, if HCI and presumably various other groups including
these Japanese really think that arms are unnecessary and evil in modern 
America, why DON'T they be honest about it and really try for an amendment
repealing the @nd Amendment.  Why use the back door methods currently in vogue?
Could it be that they realize that theirs is in fact very much the minority
opinion here in this country?

Self-defense is not a right that needed to be guaranteed in the Bill of Rights
since it simply a natural response that cannot be taken away.  The 2nd 
Amendment was inserted to guarantee that individuals have useful means to use
for this condition.

The Japanese, as well as almost all other human beings, defend themselves 
instinctively when individually attacked.  However, their post-war, peace-
worshiping constitution does not guarantee them effective means to accomplish
self-defense, and indeed historically the majority of the populace have always
been denied these means with the result that a large part of the population has
been oppressed by a minority.  Our Constitution does guarantee us the means 
for individual and collective self-protection, and it seems that the vast
majority of the populace is still individualistic enough to believe that this
is right and just.

John Case
case1@husc.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: Crime and punishment (was Re: 20/20 to crucify FFL holders)
Organization: "Well, a head on top, an arm on each side, two legs...."
Distribution: na
Date: 14 Dec 92 03:21:34 GMT
Keywords: FFL, criminals getting FFLs, HCI agenda

In <#7#rzg=@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>ice@socrates.umd.edu (Fredrik Nyman) writes:

>>Is this necessary?  A *lot* of moral "codes", while present in
>>many (most?) religions aren't inherently religious, but rather plain,
>>old, and increasingly rare good sense.

>>When you teach someone not to kill, for example, you don't also have
>>to say "because God says so"; there are *quite* a few other reasons.

>I think it is necessary.  If you try to teach a kid not to kill
>or not to steal or not to lie or to treat others as you would be
>treated and when the kid asks "why" and you cannot give a reason, 
>the kid is likely to ignore the advice.  If on the other hand, 
>you teach the kid that these things are to be done because a 
>supreme being has instructed it so and that you may burn in
>hell if you don't obey, the kid has a reason to obey.

Hmmm.  I have to disagree.  (Sortof.)  I vehemently disagree with
your proposition that we should teach *any* form of religion; most of 
these, while they may teach a "moral" code, also presume the existence
of one or more Supreme Beings, and this is what I would stand against.
Indeed, I would debate whether or not it's the _school's_ business (as
opposed to the parent's) to teach *any* sort of moral code, but then
we would bog down in whether or not there should be state-supported 
schools at all.  Let's restrict this for the moment to morals from
religion vs. morals from something else.

Let's begin with:  Why do you decide not to kill someone?  I would list
(in no particular order yet):
  Fear of secular authority (punishment.)
  Respect for other persons.
  Self-respect.

Presumably ("At least it worked for me.") you would add "Fear of Supreme
Being authority (punishment.)"  I would submit that this reason is
  a. prone to being ignored in favor of secular concerns (wealth, power...)
  b. based on someone else's say-so, rather than demonstrable fact or
      internal convictions, and thus again prone to being ignored, and
  c. (I can't think of c, let's stick with a & b so far.)

Have I misstated your position, or missed other reasons that evolve from the
SB position?  Comments?


-- 
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: markl@dvorak.amd.com (Mark Luedtke)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Bad cops - a perfect example
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:18:08 GMT
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.; Austin, Texas

In article <1992Dec17.191314.12001@dvorak.amd.com> markl@dvorak.amd.com (Mark Luedtke) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.000653.15695@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>>
>>  I agree with John that poor behavior by an officer increases
>>the chance that the officer (and other officers) will get shot,
>>but I emphatically disagree with John's and Minh's implication 
>>that minor items like this could possibly justify a shooting.
>>
>>--henry schaffer
>
>I think you went a little overboard here.  I didn't read where anyone said
>his actions "justify a shooting".  I think what was meant was that officers
>with this kind of attitude problem are more likely to get shot.  I have no
>idea whether that's true or not, but I think that was the only implication
>made.

Then again, I could be wrong.
-- 

Mark Luedtke    markl@dvorak.amd.com

This was typed by an infinite number of monkeys.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fiedler@netcom.com (Dragon (David Fiedler))
Subject: Re: Important Dates in the Gun Banning Movement
Organization: InfoPro Systems: Writers, Consultants, and Dragons
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:00:13 GMT

post@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (David Post) writes:

>In order to write a letter to the editor, I need to get some data about
>waiting periods.  I can get department of Justice data on violent crime
>rates myself from the Uniform Crime Reports.

Why bother? Just do as the HCI crowd does and make up some statistics that
will prove your point even better than the facts.

:-) for the humor-impaired...

-- 
David Fiedler       UUCP:{ames,mrspoc,hoptoad}!infopro!david        AIR: N3717R
"The future is tekon"     Internet: fiedler@netcom.com or david@infopro.com
USMail:InfoPro Systems, PO Box 220 Rescue CA 95672 Phone:916/677-5870 FAX:-5873
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Parents of slain youth continue signature drive in U.S.
Keywords: Yoshihiro Hattori's parents have mush for brains
Date: 17 Dec 92 22:09:09 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <1992Dec17.010501.6249@bluemoon.use.com> grant@bluemoon.use.com
(Grant DeLorean) writes:
>>	TOKYO (UPI) -- The parents of a Japanese exchange student shot dead in
>>October presented U.S. Ambassador Michael Armacost Tuesday with a
>>petition calling for tighter gun control laws in the United States.
>
> I am sorry for their tragedy, but what the hell right do they have
>to tell us what to do?

Agreed, it makes no sense.

>>	``We want the Americans to discuss whether possessing guns is really
>>necessary,'' she said.
>
> We have, it is.

More to the point, the whole issue of whether we should be "allowed" to
possess guns is a moot one.  What do the Handgun Control, Inc  people think
would happen if they got a law passed, revoking the Second Amendment?  Do they
expect us to just meekly comply?

    don
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Another shooting spree
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:00:35 GMT

i heard on the radio this morning about some student who killed two
and wounded 6 on a campus in the new england area (i think it was
the people's republic of massachusetts).  i'd lay odds the media
will play this one up big-time to further comrade clinton's gun
confiscation agenda...

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: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Oh, Those Swedes!
Date: 11 Dec 92 23:30:54 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

Today's gun/crime chuckle, from News of the Weird:

"Swedish Justice Minister Gun Hellsvik came under criticism in October over a
rehabilitation program established to help prison inmates adjust to society.
The program included an in-prison session to teach inmates skeet shooting by
letting them practice with shotguns."
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...