HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: leone@gandalf.ssw.com (Bob Leone)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Clinton's "National Police Corps"
Date: 30 Aug 92 16:57:38 GMT

I've been reading the discussion here on Clinton's proposal. What I've read
in the newspapers regarding the details of the proposal are that, in
theory, the new police would be members of the various local police forces,
with their training being paid for by Federal funds. At least this would
be the case in the beginning. Things might change, after the various police
depts became dependent on Federal funds.

After police depts get hooked on their Federal money "fix", the Feds can
exercise a large amount of control, by re-defining what police depts and
municipalities have to do in order to keep getting federal funding.

Like passing stricter gun-control laws.

Like maintaining a "cooperative relationship" with federal law-enforcement
entities, and being very "cooperative" with their "requests".

Also, if the feds are paying for the training of new cops, they can have
a lot of control over what type of person passes federal standards for
getting training. So they can exclude people with the wrong "attitudes",
and establish personality tests to ensure that only people with a strong
tendency to follow Federal orders without question get the uniforms and
the guns.

This would lead to Federal control over all police depts everywhere.

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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

Hey!

Note that there is some kind of address contained in this propaganda piece
that the C/G campaign published.

Tell 'em what you think. I did!  :-)

======================================================================== 
From ron Wed Aug 26 08:48:56 1992
To: 75300.3115@compuserve.com
Subject: Clinton/Gore on Gun Control


Dear Democrats,

The Brady Bill is a delay of a right guaranteed in the Constitution. It makes
no provision for genuine ACTION but simply delays the purchase.

WHY?  Many gun owners already have their firearms. Why delay the purchase
of the second or third?

WHY is there no provision for MANDATORY action on the part of Police in this
bill? Because the Brady Bill is intended as one step in denying the American
people their Constitutionally guaranteed access to militia weapons.

Even while the First Amendment is expanded to include no controls on language,
content, purpose or "redeeming social value" , you would take away access
to lawful arms.

Even while voter registration, competency, and even ability to read requirements
are eliminated, you would restrict access to the tools of self-defense.

And we think that literacy tests are restrictive and discriminatory.....
sheesh!

Both parties spout that voting is so powerful, why do you not propose a test
that allows the police to check the voter's competency to think and make
decisions appropriate for a democratic government? You would expand 
EVERY OTHER RIGHT while somehow finding that the right to bear arms
is an anachronism! The "press" only referred to political speech cranked out
on wooden presses - heaven forbid WORD PROCESSORS!!!! 

I don't much like George Bush for HIS approach to destroying the Constitution.

But I like yours even less. When I think of the Democratic Party platform,
I think of the Democratic Republic of Germany (DDR- E. Germany) where
the "welfare of the people" will be ensured by the capricious and oppressive
regulation of the ruling elite. The People's Republic of Massachussetts 
reflects a hint of the Democratic Party's vision of the future.

You can start talking about taking MY guns when Ted Kennedy goes on Spring
Break without his armed body guards and when all of your high elected
party members mingle in public without armed bodyguards.
And when you can get the Korean shopowners in LA to talk about turning
in their weapons of self-defense, it'll be at the point of a government
bayonet that the Founding Fathers were so afraid of.

And it apparently will be a bi-partisan effort that will create the
standing Army that was intended to be prevented by the founders.

I mourn for my country.
And I will oppose your efforts to turn the US into a Socialist state.

Sincerely,
Ron Miller
veteran, taxpayer, charity giver, and NRA member

Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:20264 alt.politics.clinton:3316 alt.politics.bush:3272
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover
Date: 28 Aug 1992 06:33:23 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: whirlwind.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug28.013912.10029@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>> Yes, freedom is a heady thing.  Unfortunately, your chances of experiencing
>> it in this country are on the decline, and have been since about 1915.
>Maybe 1865?...

1799? The Alien and Sedition Acts? A "loose" construction of the Constitution?
(Though things did improve for a while after 1800, the trend of
expedient government was resumed by 1815...)

						     Frank Crary
						     CU Bouldler
						     (even though I'm
						     still using my
						     Berkeley account...)
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Black Market guns
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:16:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.193726.20152@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com
(Mr. X) writes:

> 	Actually it is not that hard to make workable ammo, even from absolute
> 	scratch.  Cotton and nitric acid will provide all the smokeless 

The folks on rec.pyrotechnics can probably give you a recipe... ;-)

> 	As for casings I can think of two methods that would be readily doable.
> 	Turning them on an engine lathe or casting them.  The lathe will be
> 	able to produce good accurate cases but would also take a lot of time
> 	and waste a lot of brass from all the chips.

This would be a pain in the butt.  Also, remember that your current cases
are rather thin, so they expand and "grip" the the walls when fired.  If
you load them down a bit, thick cases should work fine (you aren't going
to turn them thin enough with a lathe).

> Investment castings
> 	could be turned out by the thousands with even the most primitive 
> 	casting apparatus.

Casting will be a pain, too.  What you want to do is swage them.  Get a
roll of brass or copper sheet, heat it (perhaps in an inert atmosphere),
and hammer your die over the brass (2 piece die set).  A press would work
a bit nicer, but probably doesn't matter.  A little trimming and polishing,
and you're done. (hmmm... old tin cans might work for this, too).

> 	Primers would present the biggest problem WRT packaging.

Same thing.  Turn a die pair on your lathe, and swage the primers.

> A tool steel plate and some
> 	drill rod, bored, turned, groung and polished to the right sizes would
> 	probably work real well.

You need some high-carbon steel.  Tool steel is nice, but might be
more difficult to aquire, and is more expensive.  Leaf springs are
reasonably high-carbon steel, and could be turned into a variety of
tools.  You want to anneal them, form the piece, heat/quench, and
depending on the parts intended use, draw the temper back.  A "light
straw" or "light amber" color is generally near the hardness of normal
tool steel (like cutter blanks).  If you draw it back to a light-medium
blue, you have a soft tool steel (like knife blades), and blue-purple
is down around spring steel temper.  [when you quench the steel, it's
glass hard.  polish it up, and then temper it.  The colors (=temperature)
move across the steel; Quench when you reach the required color] 
(remember to beat the hell out of the heated leaf spring, since
it has "memory")

-- 
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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland)
Subject: Au revoir
Organization: Transaction Technology, Inc.
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:27:51 GMT

I'm dropping off talk.politics.guns.  I just wanted to say thanks to
everyone for a good time and a good education.  I was sort-of-pro-RKBA
when I started reading, and am now more firmly of the same position
(OK, living in L.A. during April helped a little).  It now seems that
there are really no new arguments to be made one way or the other, and
re-reading and re-posting the same stuff over and over are getting
dull.  I also spend too much company time reading news, and this group
is a big piece of that.

You've all helped at least one voter become a firm believer in gun
rights.  And those of you you are opposed to that concept helped just
as much.  If there are no better arguments in favor of gun control than
the ones I've seen here, I don't see how any intelligent person
could... oh well.

I might even buy a gun someday (and it WON'T BE A RUGER!)

Keep your powder dry, folks.  I'll miss you.  I'll even miss Rifleman.
(Drop me some good-riddance hate-mail, won't you, Rifers?)

=====================================================================
Reid Kneeland
reid@ttidca.tti.com  (that's MISTER reid@ttidca.tti.com to you!)
{philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,rdlvax,retix,rutgers}!ttidca!reid
Transaction Technology Inc., Santa Monica, CA, USA (310) 450-9111 x2499
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily etc etc...

Never trust a man who can count to 1,023 on his fingers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:17:13 GMT

In article <BtpHGy.7t4@wsrcc.com>, wolfgang@wsrcc.com (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht) writes:
|> sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
|> >As commonly used by our friend Colonel Cooper, a hoplophobe is one
|> >who fears guns.
|> 
|> And what does Cooper have to say about folks that hide behind aliases?

Probably the something similar to what he says about police that wear masks on
no-knocks:

"Honest men don't need masks."

|> >(I must say I'm not surprised to see that Lambert has taken it upon
|> >himself to never let the world forget I was "The Terminator".  Let
|> >those who would discredit me know; I speak only for myself.)
|> 
|> You speak for a faceless nameless shadow that used to call itself "The
|> Terminator" and now calls itself "The Rifleman".

Come out of the closet, G---.  Anybody who really wants to know can find out who
you are, or already knows, and your little anonymity game hurts your credibility
immensely, without helping your personal security one bit.

-- 
Kirk Hays - NRA Life.
Start your day with a little civil disobedience.  Call BATF at 1-800-ATF-GUNS or
1-800-RUN-GUNS, tell them what you think of gun grabbers and government employees
that encourage people to narc on their neighbors.  Good for the soul.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lelle@wpi.WPI.EDU (Jessica Helene Andersson)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Suicides, injuries, and Vigilantees.
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 06:49:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.195029.8110@athena.mit.edu> sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
>Wait a minute.  You passed out under water and you're still twitching?

	From my BSAC Diving Manual:

	"The chances of survival are more than 100:1 when a person becomes 
unconscious on land, but that ratio falls dramatically to 1:1 (or less) 
under the water."

	Guess he just lucked out.

Ob.tpg. Should Glock start selling their underwater firing pin to the general
public we will obviously see many more muggings, robberies, etc. committed  
underwater, since the gun will pose more of a threat.  We must act now to 
ensure that this will never happen.  

	I propose we start by taking all guns capable of being fired underwater
out of the hands of criminals.  (By the usual methods: gun bans, property 
forfeiture, strip searches, etc.)  Such guns would include, but not be limited
to:
	Those evil plastic X-ray defeating Glock's
	Almost any revolver
	All guns in ziploc baggies

	This should stop America's growing problem with underwater muggings...

lelle@wpi.wpi.edu  DoD#0658  Kawasaki KZ750H  Quote-of-the-day (tm) follows:
==============================================================================
	 "I have paid my price to live with myself on terms that I will"
	 					-Rudyard Kipling
==============================================================================

P.S.  For the seriously brain dead:  ;-)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: bb063@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher J. Crobaugh)
Subject: Re: Beau Bridges, Jim Brady, and the Emmys
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 10:26:17 GMT


I saw the news clip in question...all Bridges (the punk) did 
was to hold hie statue up, lean down to the mic, and say
"It's time for MORE GUN CONTROL, and we've PASSING THE BRADY
BILL WOULD BE A GOOD START!"
-- 
bb063@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu  Chris Crobaugh - (216) 327-6655 (V)
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little 
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Date: 29 Aug 1992 02:34:28 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: lightning.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug28.191713.12585@SSD.intel.com> hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
>|> And what does Cooper have to say about folks that hide behind aliases?

>Probably the something similar to what he says about police that wear masks on
>no-knocks:
>"Honest men don't need masks."

>Come out of the closet, G---.  Anybody who really wants to know can find out who
>you are, or already knows, and your little anonymity game hurts your credibility
>immensely, without helping your personal security one bit.

I don't exactly see the value of his alias, nor am I trying to 
encourage it. 

However, it is worth noting that almost all of the "founding fathers"
wrote political essays under assumed (obvious) aliases (usually the
names of historic figures associated with establishing codes of law
or opponents of tyranny.) For example, the Federalist Papers, written
by "Publius", or the anti-federalist essays by "Brutus", "Cato",
"John DeWitt" or even "The letters from the federal farmer to the
republican."

						  Frank Crary
						  CU Boulder

(By the way, does anyone know how to get a usenet feed at Boulder?
My account is on pprince, which doesn't seem to connect. Remote 
logins to my old Berkeley account are getting to be a pain...)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: uk09365@nx05.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: Richard Reeves Column
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 02:56:22 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <PA146008.267.715452443@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  
(David Veal) writes:
>      Didn't even the ACLU at one time admit that totally effective
> gun laws would require unacceptable compromises in basic civil  
liberties?

	In the late 60's / early 70's the ACLU leader,
	a Mr. Saffiyeh (sic) said that he personally
	favored a total ban on private ownership of
	firearms.  He said that this could, however,
	not be effective without massive abrogations
	of civil liberties and that it was an idea that
	should "probably be dismissed as a failure before
	it is even tried." (quote from memory).

	I don't know that this was anything more than
	his personal viewpoint on the matter.

Robert K.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: CLINTON NEW TEXT: GUN CONTROL
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 18:11:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: N/I

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 ...   :-)

Anyway, votes for/against Congress are much more important this year.
--------
The 2nd Amendment is about sovereignty, not duck hunting.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lcline@agora.rain.com (Larry Cline)
Subject: Re: Reading Brady
Organization: Open Communications Forum
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:43:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.222822.12984@dg-rtp.dg.com> meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) writes:
>In article <71480@apple.Apple.COM> earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace) writes:
>[ ... ]
>>Let's say the chief says the buyer is a bad guy and stops the sale of the gun.
>>Is there any "punishment" of the chief if he lies?  Does the chief has to
>>prove the buyer is bad or can he just say "he's bad" and thats it?  How many
>>times do we see someone in these higher offices doing something that is
>>outright criminal, but they never get punished because of the "wording of
>>the law"?
>
>IMHO the best idea yet for protection us peon citizens against this kind
>of abuse is the following from last year's Staggers Bill:
> 
>          (2) PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION.--Any person denied a handgun because
>     the hotline established under this section  provided erroneous information
>     relating  to the  person  may bring  an  action in  any United  States
>     district  court against the United  States, or any  State or political
>     subdivision thereof which is the  source of the erroneous information,
>     for damages (including consequential damages), injunctive relief, and
>     such  other relief  as  the court  deems  appropriate. If  the  person
>     prevails in the action, the court shall allow  the person a reasonable
>     attorney's fee as part of the costs.
> 
>The attorney's fee award is crucial.  It means you don't have to
>be rich (or a lawyer with spare time :-)  to defend your rights.
>--------
>The 2nd Amendment is about sovereignty, not duck hunting.

And this is probably the primary reason it was defeated.  The "Powers that Be"
didn't want people to be able to sue them if they screwed up, willfully or
otherwise.  I think this passage should be put in every piece of legislation
at every level.

And you probably won't get anyone to admit that that's why they voted against
it.


-- 
Larry Cline (Amiga Harpoon Scenario Administrator)
lcline@agora.rain.com
C_________   Industrial Graphics
From: wolfgang@wsrcc.com (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: McLaren, Cooper and Spock's brother
Date: 29 Aug 92 09:13:29 GMT
Organization: W S Rupprecht Computer Consulting, Fremont CA

sybok@athena.mit.edu (Greg McLaren/The Terminator/The Rifleman) writes:
>wolfgang@wsrcc.com (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht) writes:
>>sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
>>>As commonly used by our friend Colonel Cooper, a hoplophobe is one
>>>who fears guns.
>>And what does Cooper have to say about folks that hide behind aliases?
>Unless I were on a police raid team invading someone's house, I'm sure
>Mr. Cooper would affirm my right to privacy.

After all, Cooper always signs his columns "Robbie The Robot."

>>>(I must say I'm not surprised to see that Lambert has taken it upon
>>>himself to never let the world forget I was "The Terminator".  Let
>>>those who would discredit me know; I speak only for myself.)
>>You speak for a faceless nameless shadow that used to call itself "The
>>Terminator" and now calls itself "The Rifleman".
>Wow, what a caricature.  You must have too much free time if--not
>being able to criticize my political views or arguments against gun
>control--you must resort to name bashing.  
>You don't carry any weight with me.  Stay in school.

Gee Greg, you don't have the conviction to sign your postings with
your real name, but you take Lambert to task for reminding you of your
past fantasy-name.  You then go on to claim you only speak for
yourself, whoever that is, while all the time hiding behind a second
CB radio-like handle.

As far as I can tell you are a cowering wimp with adolescent Star
Trek/Swartznegger/Wild West fantasies that is afraid to sign his name
to his ravings.  I'm sure Cooper would be extremely delighted to see
you claim to be on "his side".

-wolfgang

At the start of WWII, when told that Italy had entered the war on
Germany's side, Churchill exclaimed, "Well, its only fair; we had them
in the last war."
-- 
Wolfgang Rupprecht    wolfgang@wsrcc.com (or) decwrl!wsrcc!wolfgang
Snail Mail:           39469 Gallaudet Drive, Fremont, CA 94538-4511
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: CLINTON NEW TEXT: GUN CONTROL
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 02:20:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.221348.10316@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>Didn't someone once fight a revolution using muzzle-loaders?  I guess
>those are military-style, too.

Politically incorrect muzzle loaders have black synthetic stocks.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: CLINTON NEW TEXT: GUN CONTROL
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 92 03:05:08 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <1992Aug23.062913.4276@hawkmoon.mn.org> gray@hawkmoon.mn.org (Bill Gray) writes:
>
>Since I'm in the People's Republik of Minnesotax (TM), it would take
>a direct order from Beelzebub Himself to get these folks to vote for a
>non-socialist.

Hmm, next time you speak to his satanic majesty, try to convince him
that gun control and socialism are GOOD things.
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.society.civil-disob