HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Article "APRIL 21, 1935 (New World Order?)"
Date: 7 Apr 92 06:21:58 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR.

In article <oaNsiB7w164w@bluemoon.rn.com> dennis@bluemoon.rn.com
(Dennis Carney) writes:
>     When the states are abolished entirely (which could happen
>very soon if a Constitutional Convention is convened) our palladium
>of freedom and liberty will simultaneously be abolished.  The
>regional system is military in full operation.

What a complete load of paranoid rubbish!  Unfortunately I didn't have time
to respond to this hysteria over a possible Constitutional Convention in the
long articles posted earlier to this forum written by the John Birch Society
(the same people who thought Ike was a commie agent) and P. Schlafly (who
seems to think the Constitution was written by God, and therefore any
attempt to change it is blasphemy).  I simply don't understand this fear of
a Constitutional Convention.  It would have no more power to change the
Constitution than the Congress does every day them meet.  Sure, a
Constitution Convention could propose any change to the Constitution they
like, including changing it completely.  But SO CAN CONGRESS!  In either
case, the chances of the 3/4 of the States passing the "Newstates
Constitution" or some other such non-sense is zero.  The chance that they
(the ConCon) would propose such non-sense in the first place is about the
same.

I myself would love to see a Constitutional Convention.  The Founding
Fathers were wise to see that there had to be a way to get around Congress
to pass Amendments against the interest of Congress, such as a Balanced
Budget Amendment or term limits -- both of which we sorely need, but don't
hold your breath waiting for Congress to pass them.

Sure, there are always utopian wackos proposing grand changes to the way we
do things, but that doesn't mean there is some grand conspiracy or that we
should take them seriously.

Lighten up people.  Learn to laugh at these fools.  And give your fellow
Americans some credit.  They aren't likely to fall for any plan to abolish
the states any time soon.  Please don't let the irrational ravings of John
Birch and company scare you into opposing what could be a very good thing.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef		I am the NRA		  Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef	   . . .  	The only fair tax is no tax!
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Article "TURN 'EM IN"
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:51:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T


In <1992Apr14.004804.13164@athena.mit.edu> The Terminator states:

|>	However, do be aware that the dispatcher may have your name, 
|>   address and phone number if you call 911, so ... use a payphone.   

|BATF has a toll free number for reporting your neighbor--(800) 876 GUNS.
|Now, I'm not responsible if any of you misuse this information and post
|it as an erotica site bbs number to alt.sex, of course.  I also won't
|be held responsible for exchanges like the following:

|"Hello.  BATF?"
|"Yes?"
|"EAT ME!!! (Slam down phone.)"

A recent article I read about a criminal being caught after many years
on the run said that he was caught when he called the FBI to ask
about a criminal who could clear his name. They used his telephone
number to track his home down from out of state.

This means that the FBI either has the time to ask the telephone
company (AT&T? MCI? SPRINT?) to look through their database of
phone calls to the FBI or the FBI has a Caller ID system that allows
them to retain the numbers of ALL callers to the FBI.

Caller Beware!

The fact that it is an 800 number for BATF may mean that the BATF
has purchased the AT&T tariffed service that gives them the Caller
ID as well; this type of service was sold to American Express such
that they could use the telephone number to index a database for
the caller's name and pick up the phone with the greeting: "How may
I help you, Mr. Terminator?"

However, there is no reason why you couldn't advertise BATF's
number in any number of, uh, salacious publications. After all,
every call to the 800-number is money in the pocket of 800-service
provider (Thanks for using AT&T!), and the more money drained from
BATF's budget, the better!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: Kevin Langston <langston@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: (In)sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Originator: langston@eugene.convex.com
Reply-To: langston@convex.COM (Kevin Langston)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Technical Operations
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 14:03:32 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
Re: rec.guns, etc
>>	Perhaps thats the problem.  Because it is moderated, by I presume
>>a pro-gun person (who else would take the job on) that people questioning
>>whether or not all the other alternatives have been explored aren't going
>>to get a real look in there, now are they?
>
>WRONG! I participate in several firearms related mailing lists and
>news groups. These are moderated by pro 2nd amendment types but there
>are frequent discussions of when it is appropriate to use lethal force.
>The post are overwelmingly in favor of its use as a last resort. There
>are two opinoins however that I have never seen on these groups.
>
>1. Lethal force should be used for every confrontation.
>2. Lethal force should be used for no confrintation.

    You never see these extreme ideas in predominantly pro-RKBA groups or
    lists because some knowledge of the hardware and relevent laws is
    essentially required for participation. The only way a person could
    take such extreme views to heart is to be blissfully ignorant of 
    "the way things really work", that realm which is reserved exclusively
    for bigoted individuals like McDonald.
 
>Both extremes are ridiculous.

    Yet the same people adhere to both, one view they hold, the other they
    claim we hold. Of course, if they accepted our real views, they'd also
    have to admit that the "lethal force should never be used" argument is
    similarly fallacious. Then they'd have nothing to whine and moan about.

-- 
----      Kevin Langston               Convex Computer Corporation
------    WORK: langston@convex.com    Technical Operations
--------  AKA:  langston@frontier.lonestar.org
"We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: uk09365@nx02.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: Gun-Free School Zones and Gun Cases
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:34:16 GMT
Distribution: na
X-Bytes: 

Oooops, one thing I forgot.

(editorial)

It seems to me that this federal gun free school zones law may be designed  
with the following intent:

#1. To be used as model legislation by target states, eventually this will  
be used to justify such legislation in all states.
#2. To force states which do not currently have LTC's or other firearms  
permit systems to adopt them (with background checks and waiting periods  
to follow the technical detail of the law).
#3. To enhance the penalties given armed drug offenders in school zones.

RIK
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: uk09365@nx02.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: NRA billboards
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 14:51:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
X-Bytes: 

In article <2076@cronos.metaphor.com> howard@Metaphor.COM (Lee Howard)  
writes:
>  Yet another billboard might display something like the
>  following (Eddie Eagle says):
> 
> 
>                      Kids!
> 
>         When you see a gun, and nobody is around,
>         remember these three rules:
> 
>            1) Stop! Don't touch it.
>            2) Leave the area immediately, and
>            3) Tell an adult.

The anti-gun groups won't stand for it.  The only gun safety message they  
(some of them at least) want is:  Guns are bad!  No one should own a gun.

[remember the Chicago (?) Gun Safety Coloring Book case?  The book taught  
exactly the same lesson as the suggested billboard above.  The  
Superintendent of Schools refused to allow the book to be used.  He said  
that teaching gun safety legitimizes private firearms ownership and that  
the only lesson schoolchildren needed to learn about guns was that they  
were evil and should not be owned.]

Perhaps someone familiar with equal access laws could comment on what  
would be involved in getting privately funded pro-RKBA information into  
the schools (especially into schools were HCI info is accepted and  
distributed to the students).  I know this has been an issue in  
TALK.POLITICS.DRUGS and ALT.DRUGS (regarding efforts to get pro  
legalization information into the classroom and onto government regulated  
cable television systems.)

RIK
From: jvh@nature.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Susan, thanks for the email
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:31:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.rvvo9INNo2g
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: nature.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Apr6.153619.12399@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA) writes:
]>(Sorry for the wasted bandwidth, but I seem to have a mailer problem
]>sometimes.)
]>
]>Susan - Thanks for the mail.  I sent you a reply this morning (06
]>April).  Please let me know if you do not receive it, and I'll try
]>an alternate way of sending it.


	Roberta, does this mean that the responses to the questions you have
been reposting to Susan will take place in email and the rest of us will not
get to see them?  Too bad if so, since I've been interested in seeing
her answers to your post since last November.

Joan V
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Beware of Buchanan
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 19:57:31 GMT
Keywords: pat buchanan

The following is a letter which appeared in the Voice of the People
column in "Guns & Ammo" magazine:

Beware of Buchanan

Beware of Pat Buchanan!  Although he is certainly to the right of Mr. Bush
as far as economic and political creeds are concerned, he is not a friend
of gun owners or a supporter of the Second Amendment.

Differently from Mr. Bush, Buchanan is not interested in the shooting
sports, nor is he a member of the NRA.  Furthermore, I clearly remember
seeing Pat Buchanan on CNN's "Crossfire" reveal his true feelings on the
issue of semi-automatic firearms when he contemptuously slammed a MAC-10
onto the table screeching "This is not for hunting.  This is for killing
people."

Will Buchanan now join the NRA and pull the wool over gun owners' eyes by
attending an NRA meeting and promising eternal and unconditional loyalty to
the Second Amendment (like Bush did only a few months before banning
imports of a number of semi-automatics) ?  After all, Pat Buchanan used to
write Nixon's speeches, and I wonder if he also wrote the notorious "I'm
not a crook" speech.

The sad truth is, we can't trust either Bush or Buchanan, nor can we trust
any of the Democrats who, so far, have announced their candidacy to the
White House.  As far as I am concerned, either Mr. Bush reforms and begins,
by revoking his infamous ban on certain semi-automatic rifles, to make
peace with gun owners, or I am voting Libertarian in '92.  Actually, I
think I am voting Libertarian in '92 regardless of what Bush says or does.
It's safer, and I'm tired of reading lips.

Giovanni Tallino, Kodiak, AK
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
"Fight fire with fire, I always say." -- Bugs Bunny
From: rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: (In)sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Date: 14 Apr 92 11:52:01 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr13.233454.12294@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.151931.5954@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA) writes:

>>Always?  Come now, Davie, that's an extreme statement, even for you.  Note

>That is what is so charming about you mob, you are the first
>to take offense at words like ratbag, but think that using
>childish versions of people's names is OK. So childish!

Easy, there.  Davie is a common nickname for David...one of my closest
friends goes by Davie.  I sincerely apologise for mistaking you for a
friend.  I know better, really...it was a mere slip of the fingers.

---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@            *
                                                    _ _ /|      *  *  *
                                Ack Pffft Thwerrp!  \'o.O'       * * *
                                                    =(___)=  * * * O * * *
Roberta Taylor  KB2OOA        | rlt@gummo.att.com      U         * * *
AT&T Bell Labs, Whippany, NJ  |                                 *  *  *
                              | Member, Unorganized Militia of     *
 NRA/CCRKBA/SAF - Life Member |    The People's Republic of        |
   GOA - Annual Member        |          New Jersey              \ |
                                                                  \| /
Would the last American to leave New Jersey please bring the flag? |/
                                                                   |/ 
@----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}   ______|______
From: cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Serious Moonlighter)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Salmon (sic) Rushdie's insight into America
Date: 7 Apr 92 00:35:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: darkstar.32216
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz; Open Access Computing


In article <1992Apr6.053750.22925@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.015331.11844@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (wayne john warf) writes:
>>Well, fantastic, everyone in England has their own bodyguard. Why didn't
>>we think of that?
>>
>Who said that everyone in England has a bodyguard? Do you think
>that the police should just ignore the threats against SR? Or
>do you think he should be left to defend himself?

Don your flameproof underwear, David, 'cause here I go again. Wayne is
implying in this post that the only reason Salman Rushdie has a 24-hour
guard is that he is a person of some public repute, and having him killed
by Hezbollah fanatics would not be good for England's PR. Whereas, if
Charlie George the fishmonger is getting death threats from some minion of
organised crime and applies to the police for aid and protection, he is
likely to be greeted with "I'm sorry, but until this blackguard actually
does something illegal, we can't be of assistance." And of course, since he
can't legally own a handgun for self-defence, he's screwed. Personally, I
think that Salman Rushdie should have to pay for his bodyguards himself.
He's not a government official, after all. Maybe then he'd have second
thoughts on the RKBA and what it means for self-defence.

Marc Reeve
cmraman@ucscb.ucsc.edu cmraman@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us
From: n352cb@tamuts.tamu.edu (James Johnson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Perot on guns
Summary: Pro-gun or not?
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:43:59 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: ~/lib/organization

===============================================================================

I keep hearing how  Perot is Anti-gun. But I just heard him on the radio and
he said that if the laws were tough enough that you could make EVERY person,
no matter how stoned or drunk he is, to think twice before using a gun (to kill
someone). That doesn't sound anti-gun, it sounds like tough crime laws to me.

Well, if someone knows SPECIFICALLY how Perot is anti-gun, please inform me!

n352cb@tamuts.tamu.edu
ZZ\a.out
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Beware of Buchanan
Keywords: pat buchanan
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:39:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: N/I

In article <1992Apr7.195731.3633@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>The following is a letter which appeared in the Voice of the People
>column in "Guns & Ammo" magazine:
[ ... ]
>Beware of Pat Buchanan!  Although he is certainly to the right of Mr. Bush
>as far as economic and political creeds are concerned, he is not a friend
>of gun owners or a supporter of the Second Amendment.
[ etc. ]

Unfortunately, I have to agree (subject to further information, as usual).
I just received a campaign funds solicitation from Buchanan for President,
with the customary letter from the candidate describing all the issues that
it's so vital for him to deal with, if I'll just send enough money.   :-)

Four pages of issue-letter, and not a single word about gun politics.

For those who are new at this, I'll explain.  Buchanan knows quite well
that he got a major boost from gun owners in New Hampshire.  At that time
both sides made lots of warm fuzzy noises stating, in effect, that gun
owners were part of Mr. B's constituency.  Silence on his part now means
either that _he_ no longer wishes to acknowledge that, or his handlers no
longer wish him to acknowledge it.  Bad news either way.  IMHO, of course.
--------
Sen. Terry Sanford, who as Governor of North Carolina once refused protection
to a civil rights march, supports your right to keep and bear sporting goods.
From: grant@bluemoon.rn.com (Grant DeLorean)
Subject: Re: WILL THE GVT IMPLANT OUR CHILDREN???
Organization: Blue Moon BBS (614/868-9984 = T2500 | 998[02] = HST DS)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 17:11:45 GMT

(responding to Mr. Mason...)

>The angle is perfect. It is easy to drive parents to paranoia about their
>kids safety. The kids are very much the property of their parents and

 Not in Ohio, anyway. The kids are the property of the state (if the couple
who had them got a marriage license from the state), the state just allows
the parents to care for the child at least until the state decides it wants
to put them somewhere else...

>Many discount the ability of interested parties to institute anything
>resembling a totalitarian system upon the USA. They point to such
>failed attempts as the 'War on Drugs', the McCarthy ant-pinko purge etc..

 The WoD is just starting to have the desired effects, the Constitution is
being dismantaled bit by bit in the name of the WoD, with public approval
for the most part. Sad...


lpb@STRATUS.SWDC.STRATUS.COM (Len Bucuvalas) writes:

>Supporters of the U.S. "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" have been awake
>and smelling the coffee for a long, LONG time.

 Not long enough, and most seem to have their nasal pasages clogged as
they can't smell what coffee is really brewing...

-- 
\   Grant DeLorean    - IHMSA Life Member -   (grant@bluemoon.rn.com)   /

               "Ubi non accusator, ibi non judex."

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: UK court approves use of shotgun
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 12:37:52 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns

As quoted from <1992Apr6.054050.23146@matilda.vut.edu.au> by db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ):

> >It's hard to run away when you're being held by the shirt collar.
> >It's hard to run away when you're wife can't run quite as fast as you can.
> >It's hard to run away when you have small children.
> >It's hard to run away when ...
> >
> >Is a complete lack of imagination a common Austrialian trait?
> >
> I can think of loads of scenarios where running away is not
> possible. I could not equal the champion of whatifs though!
> But this thread was about people who were in a position
> when they *could* run away. Just face it, you want to be
> able to use your gun, otherwise why do you always try to 
> say that non-violence will never work?

No, what this read was about was an attempt to discredit self-defense and to
blame the victim.  Certainly nothing new there.  What is apparently new for
you and Susan is a refusual to accept such dehumanizing nonsense.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian)
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date:  9 Apr 92 23:04:40 GMT

cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton) writes:

>As quoted from <1992Apr3.232219.8647@matilda.vut.edu.au> by db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ):

>> In article <1992Apr1.191304.8082@athena.mit.edu> sybok@m4-035-2.MIT.EDU (The Terminator) writes:
>> >>Probably so.  I recently watched a film on TV in which even a Catholic
>> >>priest and a communist mayor were waving guns around  -  "Don Camillo",
>> >>it was called.  What a terrible example they were setting!
>> >
>> >Did you see "Pale Rider" with Clint Eastwood?  An EXCELLENT MOVIE about
>> >a gunslinger who blows into town to clean it up; it turns out he's a priest.
>> 
>> Instead of watching these gun-slinging movies, I suggest you watch
>> a few Australian films, in order to see life in its fullest, and
>> to get a more balanced perspective on the human experience.

>I recommend:

>Mad Max
>The Road Warrior
>Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome(?)
>Road Games
>ANZACS
>The Lighthorsemen
>Gallipoli
>Breaker Morant 

>None of these films in any way portrays nor advocates violence in any way... 
>NOT.

>And those are just the ones which have received notice in the U.S.  Such
>hypocrisy and deceit becomes you....

	No more than it does yourself Christopher.  These are only a small
fraction of the total output of our film industry.  Compare that to the
following list (off the top of my head....)

Greencard
Waiting
Proof
Picnic at Hanging Rock
Spotswood
Pacific Banana 
Eliza Fraser
Captain Midnight
Tale of a Tiger
Quiet Earth
Incident at Raven's Gate
Barry McKenzie
Barry McKenzie Holds his Own

	And many, many more (which I can't think of at this moment in time)
which represent a much broader cross section of what is produced here.  
However, it would appear that they don't often "make it" in the US, perhaps
because of their non-violent contents?





--
Brian Ross__________________________________________________________________
	"If it is dangerous to suppose that government is always right, it
will sooner or later be awkward for public administration if most people
suppose that it is always wrong."______________________________J.K.Galbraith
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: NRA excludes Libertarian
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:36:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.s1rqqINN1ef
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: tornado.berkeley.edu

I don't think the NRA has any obligation to go out of its way to 
publisize the Libertarian Party. But if they are printing any list of
candidates and their opinions on firearms, I think _all_ candidates
with official positions on the subject should be included. The argument
that the Libertarians (or any other third party) can't possibly win
doesn't really hold: There is an equally low chance that any one but
Bush will get the Republican nomination, but that doesn't justify covering
only Bush's position on the subject. Similarly, I don't see why the LPs
dim prospects should justify ignoring them.

						Frank Crary
						UC Berkeley