HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gray@hawkmoon.mn.org (Bill Gray)
Subject: Re: RKRB .sigs
Organization: Demi-Public System (One of the Eternal Champions); Eagan, MN, 55123-2507, USA
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 18:36:28 GMT

My .sig offerings:

"My gun is safer than Ted Kennedy's car."  and

"Veni, vidi, vomiti!"  --The ghost of Thomas Jefferson on reading the Brady
Bill.

Bill
-- 
gray@hawkmoon.mn.org
This site gets a fair news feed, but e-mail is more reliable. . . :-(
"Veni, vidi, vomiti!"  -- the ghost of Tom Jefferson on reading the Brady Bill
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lilianstrom@LEVY.FNAL.GOV (Be excellent to one another.....)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: NRA Ratings (was Re: 1992 Senate Races: No Contest
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:51:50 GMT
Reply-To: lilianstrom@fndcd.fnal.gov
Distribution: usa
Organization: Fermilab Special Projects Group

In article <1992Oct8.135925.4796@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>, rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:
>
>|Does anyone know how the GOA comes  up with their rating? 
>  
>I sometimes wonder about how NRA comes up with some of their "?"
>ratings. The NRA rating chart listed Carol Moseley Braun and Bobby
>Rush as having a "?" rating in Illinois.
>
>Former Black Panther Defense Minister Ald. Bobby Rush is WELL-KNOWN 
>in Chicago as being anti-RKBA; he is an exemplar of how a little
>legitimate political power can corrupt a person absolutely.
>
>Carol Moseley Braun during the Democratic Primary campaign attacked
>Sen. Alan J. Dixon on the RKBA issue; so why would it be unknown the
>candidate's position on the RKBA?

         If I recall correctly, the NRA bases their ratings based on
         surveys sent to the canidates. Ms. Braun may not have
         returned it or was so vague in it that it was useless.

         On a brighter note, Ms. Brauns lead over Rich Williamson is
         shrinking and folks are starting to contribute to his
         campaign.  Maybe there's hope for Illinois yet. 


         			al

Al Lilianstrom
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Batavia, Illinois
lilianstrom@fndcd.fnal.gov

My opinion.  Not the DOE's, URA's, or anyone else at Fermilab
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mwette@csi.jpl.nasa.gov (Matt Wette)
Subject: Re: Freaks And Self-Defense
Originator: mwette@mr-ed
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:44:12 GMT


In article <1992Oct15.164333.13727@microsoft.com>, alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:
|> ctdonath@rodan.syr.EDU (Carl T. Donath) writes:
|> >
|> >Wasn't there a case recently where some freak started shooting in a 
|> >restaurant, and someone shot back, preventing another mass execution
|> >(the type that the media loves)?
|> 
|> Well... maybe.
|> 
|> Think about it: if some lunatic in a restaurant starts shooting, and
|> an armed citizen stops him/her, how can we know whether there would
|> have been a "mass execution" or not?  Your question is unanswerable.
|> 
|> If an armed citizen or undercover cop had been in Luby's Cafe at the
|> time, the killer would have been stopped and the local news media
|> would have reported a shooting (either a "self-defense shooting", a
|> "vigilante shooting", or a "murder" depending on the editorial slant
|> of your local newspapers).  But the story would NOT have been about
|> the twenty-odd people saved by a local armed hero, because the person's
|> action would have prevented those deaths.  It would have been just
|> another ignored defensive shooting report.

There was a case in 1982(?) I believe where three terrorists attacked
an outdoor cafe in Jerusalem.  The terrorists were armed with machine
guns and were stopped by armed citizens.  If I remember right, two
terrorists were killed and the third was captured.  On questioning,
the terrorist admitted that the group had planned to attack several
sites.  I think the terrorists killed one person.

Matt
--
mwette@csi.jpl.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sday@bbn.com (Sherry Day)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: position of pres. candidates
Date: 7 Oct 92 21:31:53 GMT
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: kirin.bbn.com


Hi,  I have some questions about how the presidential candidates
feel about gun control and what have they done about their beliefs,
ie. support HCI, etc.

Also, I read on this net that Clinton wanted to have a "secret police"
Could someone please specify when he said this and to whom.  I work
with someone who doesn't think this is true (also doesn't believe
that Clinton is for gun control).  Her comment was "He lived in
Nebraska where there are alot of hunters, how could he want gun
control?"

I would appreciate any replies. Is it me, am I the only one who is 
confused by what the candidates are saying.  I hear one thing then
the opposite a few days later.  I hope I am not the only one that
feels like a mushroom.

I firmly believe in the right to bear arms (or is it arm bears?). ;)
I am getting tired of these anti-gun people telling me only criminals
want guns and that I am a criminal for wanting a gun/owning a gun
/believing I should be able to get a gun without any hassles.  

Are there any other females out there who own or want to own guns
and would like to keep them?

Sherry
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: The NRA and GHW Bush (Was: NRA Evaluation of Bush and Clinton)
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 07:54:10 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Oct12145224@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
><In article <PA146008.366.718657974@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
><   In article <1992Oct9.093602.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
> Many would consider the NRA support of a party other than,
><   say, the Republicans, as insulting.
>
>	I question this; I don't know any NRA members who are 	
>	totally "died in the wool" Republicans at all costs.

The assertion that the NRA is Republican-leaning is simply incorrect. While
the DNC is staunchly anti-RKBA, there are quite a number of Democrats who
are pro-RKBA and who have the support of the NRA. According the the NRA, in
terms of all candidates supported, support is relatively evenly split between
Republicans and Democrats. Only at the presidential and Senatoroial level do
the Republican and Democratic parties tend to split cleanly along the
RKBA issue.

A more accurate criticism would be that the NRA supports those candidates
most likely to further their cause within the immediate time frame which 
pretty much precludes support for the Libertarians until such time as they
actually pose a chance of winning. The NRA is not going to go out on a limb
to support the Libertarians although many in the NRA leadership are
increasingly vocal in their moral support of libertarians (e.g. Neal Knox).

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: NRA Evaluation of Bush and Clinton
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:05:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.190630.28538@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> clc5q@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) writes:

>A recent article in a Richmond, VA, newspaper said that the NRA was holding out
>on endorsing Bush because of his past sins, and because they hope to make him
>work a little bit for an endorsement (i.e. make some new public commitments
>regarding gun control.)  As a result, they are working primarily on creating
>a Congress that can resist gun control efforts by Bill Clinton while pushing
>Bush to do something to get an endorsement.
>
>The latest NRA-PVF (Political Victory Fund) letter has a comparison of where
>Bush and Clinton stand in regards to the NRA and its concerns. Here it is:
>
>
>			Clinton		Bush		NRA
>			-------		----		---
>
>Supports giving the
>Treasury Secretary
>authority to ban up
>to 30 million semi-autos   YES		NO		NO

     I don't know the specifics, but I've seen at least one Bush/Quayle
info-pack which stated Bush supported the banning of semi-auto
"assault weapons," which is the same terminology Clintion uses.

[...]

>Has worked against NRA
>by helping NRA-targeted
>candidates		   YES		NO		N/A

     Any specifics on the particular candidates and activities?  (It
*is* the job of a party's Presidential candidate to stump for other
candidates.  Did Clinton specifically go out of his way to support
anti-gun candidates or were many of the Democratic candidates he
supported anti-gun?)

[...]

>Supports giving Washington,
>D.C. --- the nation's gun
>ban and homicide capital ---
>2 anti-gun U.S. Senators   YES		NO		NO

     There are a lot of good reasons not to make Washington D.C. a
state.  Foremost among them the reason it was created in the first
place, so no state could claim it had the capital.

>Total support of the Brady
>Bill delaying your Consti-
>tutional right to purchase
>a handgun		   YES		NO		NO

     Key word being "total."  Clinton wants the Brady Bill to pass without
strings.  Bush sees the Brady Bill as a gold coin to barter with Congress
to get some of your other rights limited (and police power expanded.)
     Neither fill me with any confidence.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The true defense of gun ownership
Summary: Second Ammendment worng, Ninth Ammendment right.
Keywords: Guns,Constitution,Militia
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:58:52 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education

In article <Bw0CBq.5vH@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:

>First let me tell you that I am a Libertarian and no great lover of
>Government interference in the private lives of citizens. However...
>
>However, I am distressed by the willful misunderstanding of the second
>ammendment to the U.S. Constitution. This ammendment is about militias,
>not private gun ownership.

     It's about private gun ownership for the militia.

>If you pro-gun guys want to invoke the U.S. Constitution, then use the
>ninth ammendment. 

     The ninth amendment is taken about as seriously as the tenth amendment, 
which is to say not at all.

>Since the right to life is not ennumerated, but is
>assumed, then the right to life can not be disparaged. 

     Considering the current trend, any appeal to Constitutionality is
probably doomed.  (Consider for a moment, on another subject, those 
objecting to a voucher system for schools saying it would violate the first
amendment, while at the same time ignoring it's violation of the tenth.)

>Therefore, any
>means used to defend one's life cannot be prohiibited. This is logical and
>much more reasonable. 

     Perhaps they two amendments overlap.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:22129 alt.conspiracy:11273 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5380 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6860 talk.bizarre:34122
From: dpl@aber.ac.uk (David Philip Langstaff)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Language Devaluation Question...
Date: 14 Oct 92 13:17:09 GMT
Organization: University of Wales, Aberystwyth

In article <10OCT199218361585@acad3.alaska.edu> ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W) writes:
>>Modern Day Problems:
>> 
>>Don't Just Rock the Vote
>>Kick OUT THE JAMS!
>
>Who or what are the JAMS?  And while I'm asking, who or what are Discordians? 
>Finally, what do Discordians have to do with JAMS.  This is all pretty
>mysterious language to me.  Maybe it is none of my business? 
>Ssssssssshhhhhhhh!

easy one... 

they're Justified,
and they're Ancient,
and they come from Mu-mu land

... see ?

-- 
Dave Langstaff | Janet:dpl@uk.ac.aber
Any views expressed are those of the author alone. | Phone:(0970)622838 
After-life, After-shave, don't hold with any of it, bleugh! - Sir Henry
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: No Difference Between the Parties, Part 3
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:54:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Tennessee

In article <1992Oct6.221529.27659@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> clc5q@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) writes:
>Total of A+, A, A- :  152 Republicans,  49 Democrats.
>Total of F+, F, F- :   22 Republicans, 117 Democrats.
>Total of D+, D, D- :   12 Republicans,  24 Democrats.
>
>
>
>Seems to be a difference between the parties.


Not really.  Both parties are still willing to extort your paycheck from you 
and carve up your civil liberties.  It's just a question of which you are 
willing to lose first, and how fast.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: A Brady Bill Debate
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:09:37 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Oct8.222419.21471@calspan.com>, schabel@calspan.com (Dave Schabel) writes:

> Most "crimes of passion" occur between 10 PM and 4 AM.  Try to find a
> gun store open at that time!  

I have heard this statistic several times and ALMOST used it once, before
I noticed that I had no cite on file for it.  Source, please?
-- 

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: technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Kevin Kadow)
Subject: Re: A Brady Bill Debate
Organization: Technology News, IIT, Chicago, IL
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 21:41:14 GMT

I've got many friends who are pro-gun, and a few people I know are anti-gun,
and from my experience the Brady Bill is perceived very differently by the
two sides.

	The anti-gun people see it as a "reasonable" restriction that simply
acts as a delay to prevent "crimes of passion" and provide time for a background
check to "keep dangerous weapons from getting into the wrong hands".

	The pro-gun people see it as an "unreasonable infringement of a 
constitutional right" that won't stop criminals because "If they obey the law
they wouldn't be criminals" and acts as a delay. They also point out that unlike
Staggers the Brady Bill doesn't call for a mandatory check, and that it allows
the police cheif to deny a purchase by simply pretending he never received the 
application...

BTW, I have a question on the Brady Bill. If you live in a county or city where
handguns are banned, and go to another county to buy an handgun, who gets your
application? can your application be denied because possession of a handgun is
illegal in your area of residence?
-- 
               Just say NO to unreasonable search and seizure!

technews@iitmax.iit.edu                           kadokev@harpo.iit.edu
                         My Employer Disagrees.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sjo@cci632.cci.com (Steve Owens)
Subject: Re: A Brady Bill Debate
Organization: [Computer Consoles, Inc., Rochester, NY
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:59:18 GMT

In article <7190@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.214114.10486@iitmax.iit.edu>, technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Kevin Kadow) writes:
>> 	The anti-gun people see it as a "reasonable" restriction that simply
>> acts as a delay to prevent "crimes of passion" and provide time for a background
>> check to "keep dangerous weapons from getting into the wrong hands".
>> 
>> 	The pro-gun people see it as an "unreasonable infringement of a 
>> constitutional right" that won't stop criminals because "If they obey the law
>> they wouldn't be criminals" and acts as a delay.
>
>As always, the real answer is somewhere in the middle.  It might keep 
>guns out of the hands of a few really STUPID criminals and/or a few 
>psychologically-unfit individuals who are enough out-of-it to try buying
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>a gun at a dealer's.  And it's not necessarily an unreasonable infringement
>of a constitutional right, except that no one can guarantee that when it
>doesn't really affect the body count in America (and it won't) the "answer" 
>won't be to make it unreasonable.

	The problem is: How do you *prove* someone is psychologically
unfit to own a gun?  Should the definition read anyone who is seeing
a psychologist, or should it be someone who has spent time in a mental
institution?  If you base it on past history, how can you say they can't
be trusted with a gun now that they've received treatment?  Is it right
to apply the same logic to the mentally ill that you apply to a convicted
felon?  How would this law apply to someone like Hinkley (sp?) who didn't
show violent tendencies beforehand?

	For someone who is a convicted felon of a violent crime, I can
understand the restriction because they have demonstrated that they can
be sane in the eyes of the law and *still* commit violent acts, but what
about someone "who wasn't in their right mind" ?

	In all of the incarnations I've seen or heard of, the Brady Bill
leaves too much to interpretation to be truly useful (disreguarding the
fact that it doesn't address the *real* problem to begin with.)

>-- 
>
>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...


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Others are revolted, I am unmoved                      Steven J Owens @ CCI
 Gripped by desires, I am unmoved                    (716) 482-5000 Ext 2867
 Hearing the wisdom of sages, I am unmoved                 sjo@op632.cci.com
 I move only in my own way." - Lu Yu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: tom@oracorp.com (Tom)
Subject: Re: Pistol Permits in NYC
Organization: ORA Corporation
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:10:55 GMT

zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
: While perusing a copy of the New York Post, I came across the following ad:
: 
: LOW FEE
: $275.00

Wow, I'd hate to see their idea of a high fee.
 
: Amex. Carry permits good in N.Y. State. Safety
                              ^^^^^^^^^^
: 
: Has anyone tried dealing with these people?  What's the scoop?
: Do they really get you through the obstacles of the Sullivan Law?

This is the first time I heard of this.  I notice that the article
didn't say anything about a permit being valid in NY City!  I have
a NYS carry permit, but it explicitly states that "If issued outside
of New York City, not valid to carry a weapon in New York City
unless approved by the police commissioner of that city."

-- Tom
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: OK I was wrong.
Summary: I was mistaken about Militia
Keywords: Militia,2nd Ammendment
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:25:57 GMT


Ok, I was wrong about Militias. Many of you folks out there were *very*
quick to correct me. As a member in good standing of the Militia, I still
say the most straight forward claim to the right to bear arms for personal
self defense still derives from the  Right to Life. 

I we have a right to life, then we have a right to any action, or the use
of any implement which sustains and or defends our lives, submect to the
Caveat that in taking such action or using such implements, we do not
wronfully deprive others of their lives or property.

I now propose a new Ammendment,

A Well Function News Conference being necessary for the protection and
furtherance of our Liberties, the right to throw flames shall not be
infringed.

Ciaou,

Conan the Libertarian rjk@world.std.com
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"
"Beautify America, don't brake for Tax Collectors"
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing army?
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:18:41 GMT
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory

>When you pass a law outlawing such behavior it is a kind of prior restraint.
>And those who argue that flag burning is not free speech also argue that it
>causes emotional harm to people, not to mention a fire hazard.  If you don't
>like the "shout" example, there are plenty of others.  You are simply trying
>to avoid the point, which is that there is no such thing as an "absolute"
>right in our society.

I have not seen anyone denying that there are limits to the RKBA. For example
if you shoot at innocent people then you have exceeded your rights. What we
have said is that it is immoral and unlawful to take away rights which we
are not and have not abused.

So give us an example of reasonable prior restraint and let us talk about
that.

				mike
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson)
Subject: Re: Vote 92'
Organization: AC Nielsen Co., Bannockburn IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 20:18:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.145417.19420@stortek.com> vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak) writes:
>
> I also heard that the (D) offering for Senate in IL. is in deep 
> trouble after it was discovered that she participated in "welfare" 
> fraud, failure to report income to the IRS, "loans" from her campaign
> fund, and some questionable consulting fees.  I don't know how
> her (R) opponent is rated, but he can't be any worse than her. She
> is a typical "Chicago" politico type.  However in Chicago, being
> a crook might help her get elected!

Carol Moseley Braun.  She still leads Williamson in the polls by somewhere
around 2:1 even after the dirt on her was uncovered.  Even during the
debate the other night, she could not refute his charges, but people
still want her in office.  I can't believe peoples' willingness to bend
over and grab their ankles on the basis of a few pretty words and lots
of empty promises (note: this comment applies to Dems/Repubs/Perogies
alike).

John Kapson   NRA ILA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mwette@csi.jpl.nasa.gov (Matt Wette)
Subject: Re: NSW homicides
Originator: mwette@mr-ed
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:54:47 GMT


In article <LAMBERT.92Oct6170742@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>, lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
|> >>>>> On Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:02:44 GMT, cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) said:
|> > (Tim Lambert) writes:
|> 
|> >>(21
|> 
|> > Huh!?  19 degrees of freedom!  That's enough to least-square fit an elephant!
|> 
|> Explain to us how 19 df allow you to "fit an elephant".

I believe this refers to the fact that if you provide enough
parameters to a model, you can fit any data to it and claim
"the model fits the data."

-- 
mwette@csi.jpl.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ayr@gtech.com (Aleksey Y. Romanov)
Subject: statistics
Organization: GTECH Corporation, West Greenwich RI
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:37:41 GMT


Does anybody have a legal-illegal gun use in the solved crime cases:

I would like at least something like follows:


           Total number of solved crimes    Total number of solved crimes
Year       with guns involved               with a legally owned guns involved



-- 
Aleksey Y. Romanov

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are entirely my own and do not
necessary reflect those of my employer or anyone else