HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Why a sawed-off shotgun?
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:44:48 GMT

In article <viking.716096205@vincent2.iastate.edu>, viking@iastate.edu
(Dan Sorenson) writes:

> there any indication that the marshall will go to trial for this?  Was
> his conduct even reviewed?  It looks like justifiable homicide from this

I guess I have just the opposite view.  If he didn't identify himself
before firing, he deserves to be stood up against the wall and have a
discussion with a firing squad.

> desk, but I can't judge it from here.  Naturally, the press in my area
> are too busy trying to play up the religious fundamentalist and survivalist
> angles to provide any real facts, and quite naturally failed to mention
> anything about Bo Gritz except that he is a political candidate.  As I
> recall, this is the only press coverage he's been given.

The only thing I heard on the news was "White supremist wanted on
federal firearms charges".  Great coverage by the press... :-(

[Note the main buzz words here: "white supremist" and "firearms",
obviously this guy is guilty of anything charged, and deserves
what he got...  according to "the press"]

> 	Conspiracy theorists would have a field day with the US media.

Maybe we should mention that it's related to the Kennedy assasination,
and post it to alt.conspiracy...  ;-)

-- 
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: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: Why a sawed-off shotgun?
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 17:56:38 GMT
Organization: N/I

In article <fbPY02lS20ew01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> bws20@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Brian W Simmons) writes:
>
>In article: <9209072023.AA08588@dg-rtp.dg.com>
>
>Bill Meyers signs off with:
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>#It has come to my attention that Mr Weaver's "crime" was having a shotgun
>#barrel too short by *** .1 inch ***. Certainly justification for all the
>#bloodshed that has and will occur over the matter. [sarcasm off]
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Meyers neither said that nor signed off with it.
From: robs@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert Sipe)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Update: Seattle Gun Buy-Back
Keywords: ugh
Date: 8 Sep 92 23:08:55 GMT
Organization: Boeing

In article <1992Sep04.204202.17238@microsoft.com> joeha@microsoft.com (Joseph Harper) writes:
>Further news of the Seattle Buy-back program.
>
.
.
.

   I saw a lot of TV news reports on the Seattle buy back program.
It was pretty rediculus when one looks at what was being sold to
the police.  I saw many rusted pieces of junk.  One revolver came in
without a cylinder.  What kind of threat does this type of firearm
pose.  If you ask me, the donors to this program sure got took.
The TV news broadcasts were a bit misleading too.  One newcast was
showing weapons in plastic zip lock containers which were marked as
evidence.  That means that reporters were rerunning old film clips
of confiscated firearms.  Obviously, no one would sell those $600.00+
weapons to the police for $50.00.  
   Is this the best gun grabbers can do to reduce violent crime?!?  With
the liberal Demo's running our government it is no wonder that we are in
the straits we are in.







-- 
For those of you who wish to send a clear message to Time-Warner for
promoting Ice-T's Cop Killer song, write to: Geral M Levin, CEO 
                                             75 Rockefeller Plaza
                                             New York, NY 10019 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Re: Gun Purchase Laws
Date: 04 Sep 92 21:00:17 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (aaron greenwood) writes:
>
>> ...in what states can you by guns without leaving a paper trail.
>>In California there is a 15 day waiting period thus a record of
>>you purchase.  I guess what I am getting at is in what states can
>>you buy a gun where the state does not get involved.
>
>None at all (at least not legally): All sales through a dealer
>require filling out a federal record of sale.

Quite true, for purchases from dealers.  There are still a number of
states, however, in which no paperwork is required to purchase used
firearms from private (non-FFL) individuals.

Here in Washington state, for example, such sales are legal.  If one
were to purchase a used firearm with cash from a non-dealer, there
would be no record of the transaction.

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: csjohn@knuth.mtsu.edu (The Mad Hatter)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Dept. of CS, Middle TN State Univ, Murfreesboro, TN
Distribution: acm
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:52:56 GMT

In <1992Sep8.004127.17208@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <1992Aug24.194537.7677@athena.mit.edu> sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug24.055923.9087@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

[ ten lines deleted ]

>>meant "well-disciplined/competent/able" when said of troops.  
>                                                      ^^^^^^
>Note key word there. This definition refers to "troops", does it not? Now
>look up "troops" in your 1989 version. My 1991 version reads:

>	troop. 1. a. A body of soldiers.

>>You can
>>concoct any definition you please, but the real definition of "well
>>regulated" used by the Founding Fathers has everything to do with being
>>competent with a gun, and nothing to do with being under government control
>>and organization.  

>See above. The very definition you cite is limited in scope to "soldiers",
>which does, I'm afraid, imply "government control and organization".

Oh yes.  I seem to remember now that Thomas Jefferson, way back
in the late 1700s, managed to get an advanced copy of the 1989
Oxford English Dictionary.  Seeing how the usage and meanings
of any language changes over the years, he wanted to make sure
that our US Constitution and its Bill of Rights would be well
understood by even the most "way-cool dudes" of modern times.
That's just one of many reasons why the US Constitution and its
Bill of Rights is such a "totally bad" document.  
(Bad means really great, right?)

-- 
John Wallace   ||   INTERNET: csjohn@knuth.mtsu.edu
  > > > Vote for freedom.  Vote Libertarian. < < <
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Seattle Buy-Back Update
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:49:19 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep11.153715.10191@unislc.uucp>, jdw@unislc.uucp (James Warren) writes:
> When faced with the greater fear of owning a gun, why did they do it?
> Are they just thrill seekers looking for the scariest form of life to
> live, and if so why did they suddenly change their minds?  

No, they probably inherited it in some way -- either from a dead relative,
a tenant left it behind, etc.

> In general, NRA wants to
> keep guns out of the hands of criminals and incompetent persons while
> not restricting the use of guns by law-abiding citizens.

I have two minds about this.  Anyone who turns in a $400 gun for $50 shows
at least one symptom of being an incompetent person.  If they kept the gun,
they probably would have been unwilling or unable to use it effectively
anyway.  I can't get all excited about the fact that a fool and his gun
were soon separated.
-- 

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,tx.politics
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Subject: Re: HCI media event
Followup-To: tx.politics
Reply-To: kossack@qvi.com
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: tx
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 04:45:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.000234.27179@SSD.intel.com> hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
- Our "Free the Brady Bill" strategy that we discussed last month
- is off and running. September 1 is our kick-off day. On that
- day, a series of 12 press conferences will be held across the
- country. Attached is a list of those cities and the times and
- places of the press conferences. In each city, we have the Mayor
                            [ ... ]   
- HOUSTON, TX:        1000 am City Hall, city council members
- 

	I don't recall hearing anything about this in the news. 
   Can anyone enlighten me as to what happened, or point me to 
   newspaper (Comical or comPost) articles regarding the press 
   conference.  Did the press show up?  :-) 

	Thanks.  

-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  Don't Miss Meals 
  kossack@qvi.com  |       Bag Your Diet
  +1 713 240 2073  |            Eat More Fast Food
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment Myths
Date: 4 Sep 92 21:16:55 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <81848@bcsaic.boeing.com>, rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:
> >I am a member of the militia, by federal law, so the
> >Second Amednment protects my right to keep and bear arms (in my capacity
> >as a member of the militia.)
> 
> I have no answer to this other than to say that the Supreme Court has yet
> to overturn a single gun control law on the basis of this interpretation.
> Moreover, I think the court should have distinguished between eligibility
> for militia duty and militia duty itself.  The fact remains that you belong
> to no real militia, and you haven't been asked to engage in any of the 
> training that you and others think "well-regulated" refers to.

Here we see the underlying philosophy of Mr. Wojcik's ideal state, where
everything not mandatory is forbidden.  You may not do anything that the
state has not asked you -- told you -- ordered you to do.  I wonder what
mayor or alderman told Mr. Wojcik to get his butt out of bed this morning?

Heaven forbid that we may decide to engage in such training OURSELVES, 
which is exactly what the Second guarantees us the right to do.

  "Of what service would militia be to you, when most probably you will
  not have a single musket in the State; for as arms are to be provided by
  Congress, they may or may not furnish them."

  (Patrick Henry, from the Virginia Ratification Convention.)
-- 

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: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: JDs (was Re: Clinton in _Rolling Stone_ ...)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 02:55:43 GMT

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
: In article <1992Sep11.224412.24310@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
: 
: Note that conversion is quite rare.  Everyone seems to think that it's
: easy and knows "someone" who will do it, but the criminal justice
: system stats disagree.  The idea seems to come from a confusion of
: form with function, not unlike that found in people who think that
: their local car dealer sells cars just like those used in stock car
: races.

Yep. It is surprising how few are confiscated from arrested criminals.
You would thing that, if they were so all pervasive, that more would
show up.

: Since 1934, guns that can be readily converted to full-auto have been
: regulated as if they were converted.  "Readily" has been interpreted
: by the courts to include 8 hours of work by a competent machinist with
: appropriate equipment.  (We don't know how much more time/effort the
: courts will go for; that's a lower bound.  It is a somewhat absurd
: lower bound, as one can make a full-auto from scratch in less time.)

Functional, yes - with burst firing capability, I doubt it.

: Every time I post this, someone insists I'm wrong, that it's easy to
: convert guns to full-auto, that anyone with a screwdriver or a file
: can do it in 10 minutes.  My response each time is the same; put up or
: shut up.  I'll pay $3k plus up to $2k expenses to anyone who can
: demonstrate such a conversion to me or a surrogate of my choosing.
: (The demonstrator must provide evidence showing that the gun converted
: started out as a sold-as semi-auto in the US.)  I still have my money.

They might be able to, if they can jamb the firing pin forward. However,
that gives you an all-or-nothing effect. Once you fire the first round,
the only way to stop it is remove the clip.

: >Also, you can fire a semi-automatic almost as fast as an
: >automatic weapon - it is just tiring on the finger.
: 
: If this was true, one could reliably get single shots out of automatic
: weapons by just letting off, but that's not true for most.  Typical
: instantaneous cycle rates start from 600 shots/minute and go up, but
: the effective rate of fire is much lower because it is dominated by
: reload time.

I wish I could find my reference on military small arms of the world.
I seem to recall that 600 rounds/minute was an upper bound for most
automatic weapons - with the exception of the minigun type.

I have fired Uzis, Thompsons, BARs and Maxims single shot. Of course,
I had to rap the trigger - not squeeze it. On occasion, I would get
a two shot burst. 

I don't know how long a person could sustain rapid fire with a semi-
automatic, I have never tried for more than a few rounds. 

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment Myths
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:07:48 GMT


Paul Swanson writes:

>Hey, speaking of second amendment, I noticed this quote in the paper the
>other day:
>
>If I were writing the Bill of Rights now, there wouldn't be any such
>thing as the Second Amendment ... This has been subject to one of the
>greatest pieces of fraud - I repeat the word fraud - on the American
>public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.
>
>                                 - Former Chief Justice Warren Burger
>
>Here is someone who probably has a good idea about constitutional law
>who apparently thinks the RKBA is a misinterpretation of the Second
>Amendment.
>
>Paul.

_Encyclopedia Britannica_ (*not* a noted pro-gun source) has this to say about
former Chief Justice Burger:

"[Burger's] opinions were not particularly noted either for their intellectual
consistency or for their comprehensive and systematic application of legal
principles."

I'd say he's carried that inability into his post-judiciary public life, as well.

-- 
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: tmi@well.sf.ca.us (Peter Kasler)
Subject: Re: Civil immunity states (was Re: Hand-loads for defens)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 06:21:32 GMT

In <199209051612.AA29622@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>##    Are you required to try to run away before shooting?

>(and I _think_ there are some in California) would require you to do
>everything you could to avoid the situation. Since someone in a

	California *does not* require a defender to "run away" or to
retreat in any way, even if it is possible, before defending against
an attack. Some states, however, do so require. MA, for example,
requires that one "retreat to the wall" even in one's own home before
defending one's self.
-- 
                           Peter Alan Kasler
                      Threat Management Institute
                 800 West Napa Street, Sonoma, CA 95476
     Voice: 707-939-0303  =  tmi@well.sf.ca.us  =  Fax: 707-935-1713
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: pat@fitz.uucp (Patrick Fitzgerald)
Subject: Free the Brady Bill flops
Organization: Intergraph
Distribution: talk
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 19:25:12 GMT


Here in Huntsville, Al, the "Free the Brady Bill" fiasco got almost zero
press.  The only mention was a picture from Atlanta in the "local" section
of the paper. (?)

However, it was not a picture of Sarah Brady's pontificating, it was a
picture of the protesters marching outside the building!

Good job, Atlanta folks!

Patrick "ramblin' wreck" Fitzgerald
--
   ______   |o| Patrick Fitzgerald     |o| Mailstop GD3002
  / ___  )  |o| pat@fitz.b30.ingr.com  |o| Huntsville, AL 35894-0001
 / __)/ /__ |o| Sr. Software Analyst,  |o| VOICE: (205) 730-3741
(_/it(_____)|o| Intergraph Corporation |o| FAX:   (205) 730-3300
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: A little on self defense...
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 05:07:22 GMT

tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!)) writes:

>A few days later a friend of the thugs went
>after him with a handgun; the karateka recieved a minor hand wound,
>the attacker ended up dead from masssive head trauma - his cranium
>was introduced to the wall, then repeatedly to the ground, with high
>velocity.

	For the record, I once hit a deer at about 30mph on my motorcycle.
I had a torn jean jacket for injuries.  I'd say his luck was similar to
mine, at least on the days these events happened.

	Second, physically beating somebody to such an extent that they die
sounds somewhat illegal unless that person continued to be a threat until
the final aquaintance of head and concrete was made.  Given the situation,
it's understandable, but you'll note gun users are prosecuted on this.

	This seems quite unfair.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: Black Market guns
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 22:19:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: N/I

In article <1992Sep1.201654.27232@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.193726.20152@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com
>(Mr. X) writes:
[ ... ]
>> 	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).

One of the functions of the "thin" cartridge case is to seal the firing
chamber, by expanding against the chamber walls when the cartridge is
fired.  A homemade thick cartridge case will allow hot abrasive gasses
to leak around it, possibly damaging the gun and injuring the shooter.
It won't work "fine".

However, it will probably work "good enough".   :-)
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Seattle Buy-Back Update
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:20:53 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 3583@bcstec.ca.boeing.com, nick@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Nick Leiterman) writes:
>I am not in favor of gun buyback programs,  but I am not totaly against it
>I think it is a waste of money, but its not my money they are wasting.  
>The worst thing about it is all the press it gets for the anti's.

I agree with you that these programs are a waste of time, if their only purpose
is to reduce crime and tragedy by reducing gun availability.  I think that the
amount of money spent was around $65,000, and only about 1,200 guns were collected
before the program went broke.  On the other hand, who can say?  It is conceivable
that, were it not for this program, a child might have gotten his hands on one
of those guns and killed another child.  Is $65,000 worth it to avoid that kind
of tragedy?  But, from a cold statistical point of view, such programs do almost
nothing to reduce crime or gun availability.

The point that Nick makes about getting "press" is important.  As one of the
"anti's", I feel that such programs serve to dramatize the role of guns in
our society.  To show that not everyone who owns a gun is happy with it.  For
some people, the possession of the gun alone was greater than their fear of
criminals.  Gun possession, for these people, went from the lesser of two evils
to the greater of two evils.  The question is, how many gun owners really want
to live in a society where gun possession is unrestricted?  NRA propaganda would
have us believe that they all do.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jbs@rti.rti.org
Subject: Re: Why a sawed-off shotgun?
Organization: Joe's Bar and Grill
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 20:59:36 GMT

In article <fbPY02lS20ew01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> bws20@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Brian W Simmons) writes:
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>#It has come to my attention that Mr Weaver's "crime" was having a shotgun
>#barrel too short by *** .1 inch ***. Certainly justification for all the
>#bloodshed that has and will occur over the matter. [sarcasm off]
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>It seems to me that murdering a federal law enforcement official is
>sufficient reason for bloodshed.

The federal law enforcement official was not killed by Weaver, and the feds
drew first blood.

The marshal who was killed was one of a group who, after shooting Weaver's
dog without provocation in front of Weaver's 13-year-old son, Sam, pointed
their guns at Sam, who pointed his own gun back. It's not clear who
fired the first shot, but shooting began at that point and a family friend,
Kevin Harris, who was behind Sam, shot the marshal after one of the
marshalls had shot Sam. Sam was shot again, in the back, and killed by the
marshals. Then and only then did one of the men (who was dressed in
camouflage) identify himself to Harris as a federal marshal.
 
>  It seems unfortunate to me Weaver
>was not slain before he managed to breed.  The only thing worse than
>a racist asshole is a _religious_ racist asshole, except perhaps a
>religious racist asshole who may pass his perverted beliefs on to
>another generation. [No sarcasm to turn off]

Well, a true patriot of the land of the free, I see.
Real glad to have you with us.

  -joe
Newsgroups: 2,3,talk.politics.guns,fido.rtkba