HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: davidb@inmet.inmet (David Barton)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Intermetrics, Inc.
	<5848@transfer.stratus.com> <1992Sep8.002024.17105@rotag.mi.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:49:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.002024.17105@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
(Kevin Darcy) writes:

   Then what is the purpose and effect of the first clause, pray tell?

The same as any similar subordinate clause in the English language; it
is an explanation of (and in this case a justification of) the main
clause of the sentance.  Given that it does not contain a modifying
conjunction or preposition (such as "except" or "only"), it does not
restrict the main clause in any way.

As an example, see the last sentance of the previous paragraph.  The
subordinate clause explains, and justifies, the main clause.

I find it difficult to believe that this thread has gone on this long.
This is not a political argument, but a technical one about English
usage.  Authoritative English professors have been quoted (although
this does not take one; an eighth grade English teacher is sufficient)
to the effect that the interpretation above is the correct one.
Unless you can come up with a similar authority, your continuing posts
simply waste bandwidth without contributing to the debate.

Find another argument.  This one does not pass muster.  Never did.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:25:18 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 2680@leela.cs.orst.edu, mcbeeb@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (Brian Mcbee) writes:
>Hmmmm. It is generally conceded that the United States has the most
>powerful military in the world.  And recent discussions on tpg have 
>convinced me that the US military could NOT conquer the population of
>the US.  Which leads to the conclusion that no other country could
>either.  So the question is:  If the job of the military is to protect
>the polulation of the US against foreign aggression, why bother having
>a standing military at all?

This question is less frivolous than you realize.  In reading some of the old
language associated with the 2nd, it appears that there were attempts to 
prevent the establishment of a standing army in peacetime.  For example, the
Senate, at one point, rejected the insertion of the following language in one
version of the 2nd:

"that standing armies, in time of peace, being dangerous to Liberty, should 
be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will
admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination
to, and governed by the civil Power.  That no standing army or regular troops
shall be raised in time of peace, without the consent of two thirds of the
Members present in both Houses, and that no soldier shall be inlisted for any
longer term than the continuance of the war."

Whew!  Anyway, this only underscores my point that the major concern of at 
least *some* of the framers was to curtail the power of the federal govern-
ment--not only to prevent federal regulation of the state militias, but to
prevent the feds from having an army with which to oppress the states.  With
the 2nd amendment guaranteeing the establishment of state militias,
the country would be safe from foreign sneak attacks.  So why permit the feds
to have so much power?

>(Of course the real answer is that the job of the US military is NOT
>to protect us from foreign aggression, but to protect OTHER countries
>citizens from foreign aggression, and to occassionally commit some
>foreign aggression of our own.)

I don't agree.  I think that the Federalists were not able to block the
2nd, but they were able to prevent the Antifederalists from destroying
the ability of the nation as a whole to defend itself with a coherent 
armed force.  The Antifederalists got the 2nd as a sop--to prevent the
feds from disarming the sovereign states and preserve the old status quo
that they enjoyed under the Articles of Confederation.  Their own armed
forces.

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

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030)
Subject: Re: A little on self defense...
Organization: BNR, Inc. Research Triangle Park, NC
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:46:36 GMT

> Frank Crary wrote:
>I'm not saying
>martial arts are a solution to every (violent) situation: If you       
>count on an attacker being several meters away, a gun is the best
>choice for self-defence. If the attacker will be within a few meters,
>some sort of martial arts would be extremely usefull. In the much
>more realistic case, where either of the above might occur, you
>would be much better off having _both_ options.
 
 I agree with you, the more option a person has the better. Some 
 awareness training and getting in the habit of noticeing your 
 surroundings (people following you, guy standing in dark area)
 is also needed to try and avoid trouble. 
 I've just been used to discussing this with anti's and one of their 
 favorite lines is that martial arts training is all you need to defend 
 yourself. I just wanted to point out that there are flaws to that and not
 everyone can use MA. (my friends grandmother can barely walk but keeps a
 loaded .38 handy) 

   Myron
  NRA, IPSC


 ***************************************************************

 The opinions included in this post are my sole responsibility.
 And are protected by the First Ammendment and guarnteed by the 
 Second.   
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: No Difference Between the Parties?
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 15:48:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: N/I

In article <1992Sep8.202039.2727@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) writes:
>In article <1992Sep7.190138.986@dg-rtp.dg.com> meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) writes:
>>
>>Sarah Brady is a Republican.
>
>Brilliant. I post an article SPECIFICALLY stating that I am only dealing with
>the Congress, and that I don't want to talk about individuals like George Bush
>because they are not as reliable (statistically) as a larger sample of a few
>hundred Republican members of Congress, and I get this gem.

Sen. John Chaffee is a Republican.  He just introduced S. 2913, "To
prohibit the manufacture, importation, exportation, sale, purchase,
transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and
ammunition" -- this is Republican "weakness" and "need to compromise"?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 18:55:01 GMT

In article <Bu369F.J8s@rice.edu>
kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack) writes:

>
>In article <PA146008.270.715552135@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (Davd Veal) writes:
>|>      Arguing on Ninth Amendment ground might certainly be appropriate,
>|> but so is arguing for the Second Amendment.   Considering it *does*
>|> have all the requisite properties.  (People, arms, bear, etc.)
>|>
>|>      It is, however, generally the kiss of death to try and argue for
>|> something on Ninth Amendment grounds.  You will be summarily ignored.
>|> It's been a long time since anybody took Amendments Nine and Ten
>|> seriously.
>
>	Wait a cotton-pickin minute, pardner.  I thought that the
>   Roe vs. Wade decision and the Federal mandate for legal abortions
>   was based on those very amendments, specifically the so-called
>   right-to-privacy, a right that the FFs forgot to ennumerate.
>
>	Silly me, I thought this was talk-abortion.   :-)
>
     In that message, or maybe another, I also said that there were a
couple of exceptions for the use of the Ninth Amendment.  I've always
thought the right to privacy, though, rose perfectly well from the
Fourth Amendment.

     Be that as it may, try agruing something the court hasn't ruled on
with somebody (like, say, the right drive an automobile on public roads)
under the Ninth Amendment.  Nobody will take you very seriously.

(Let's see if I can direct the follow-ups to talk.politics.guns.)

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030)
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Organization: BNR, Inc. Research Triangle Park, NC
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:23:36 GMT

> Rick Wojcik wrote:
>So when is the last time you went to militia drills with your neighborhood
>gun owners?

 At least 4 time a month:
  Hi power DCM rifle, IPSC pistol match, 2 practice sessions at the range
 If I don't go to a match I have more practice sessions including training 
 my wife.  There is also a large group that trains at more matches than that.
 But I also do fitness training 4 or 5 times a week ( running and weight 
 training). Which is a lot more then the NG does. 
 
 What is the last militia training you did Rick? 

   Myron
  NRA, IPSC


 ***************************************************************

 The opinions included in this post are my sole responsibility.
 And are protected by the First Ammendment and guarnteed by the 
 Second.
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Re: ICLU Commission on the 2nd Amendment and Gun Control (Long!)
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:28:45 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) / 12:00 pm  Sep  1, 1992 /

>1989 total:     2,155,000 (all causes, NCHS estimate)
>firearms:          33,000 (all -- accident, suicide, police, crime, etc.)
>heart disease:    734,000 (NCHS estimate)

1991 total for AIDS ~ 36500. 

I believe that this is the first year that AIDS related deaths have passed
deaths from firearms (all causes.) Its going to climb fast too.  With 
around a 10 year incubation period, after an HIV positive test, (last I 
was told anyway) and 1,000,000 KNOWN cases now, it's going to get a lot 
worse fast.  

With any luck, some of the focus will go off the 1400 or so accidental 
firearms deaths each year.   Get ready to register the sexual organs of 
your preference.  :-)

There was an article in the October issue of HANDGUNS that stated that 
most of that 1400 accidental deaths due to firearms,  89% I believe, were 
from other than handguns.   This is consistent with figures I've heard 
that most accidental deaths (66-75%) are hunting accidents that will tend 
to involve long arms.  

Citizens kill around 2800 criminals each year or about 14X the number of 
accidental deaths due to handguns.

Rick.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment Myths
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:23:31 GMT
Organization: Twilight Zone

In article <BuGAxH.Bt0@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>In article <DLB.92Sep10103905@fanny.wash.inmet.com> dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes:
>>
>>In addition, stating that the Second Amendment is vague and ambiguous
>>does not make it so.
>>
>Yes. And stating white is white does not make it so. But neverthless
>it is still white, just as the Second Amendment is vague and ambiguous.

	Ah well, time to open the old kill file and insert another moron.
	Long overdue I admit, but as they say, better late than never.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Why a sawed-off shotgun?
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:30:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.205936.27220@rti.rti.org>, jbs@rti.rti.org writes:

> marshals. Then and only then did one of the men (who was dressed in
> camouflage) identify himself to Harris as a federal marshal.

Just a question here.  Do Federal Marshals have any authority in the
sovereign States?  I thought their authority was limited to the
_territories_ of the US, and Washington DC.

-- 
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
From: "charlie duncan" <charlie.duncan@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: nra bbs open now!!!
Date: 11 Sep 92 01:04:54 EST
Reply-To: "charlie duncan" <charlie.duncan@execnet.com>
Distribution: talk
Organization: Executive Networks Information

TA>    Subject: nra bbs open now!!!

TA>>>       Well folks it's here!
TA>>>       The NRA BBS is now open for business.
TA>>
TA>>>       For those of you who have called Tanya's other board
TA>>>  [Bullet 'n Board], you may agree with me, that using it [BnB] is
TA>>>  less than optimal.
TA>>
TA>>Oh my gawd.  I can't believe it.  She's about the most obnoxious
TA>>person involved in the gun rights movement I've ever had the displeasure
TA>>to talk with.  Is this BB NRA sanctioned or is she off on her own tangent?
TA>>If it's NRA sanctioned, boy do I have some letterwriting to do.
TA>>

TA>No, Tanya has no NRA sanction and doesn't get any of thier money.  What's
TA>your beef with her?  She sounds like a different person than the Tanya I
TA>know.  What happened?
TA>-=-=-
TA>T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu


       The new NRA/ILA BBS - called Gun Talk does indeed have 
  Tanya Metaksa as the sysop.  She is also the sysop of her own 
  2nd Amendment BBS called the Bullet 'n Board.

       And yes, for running the ILA BBS she does receive 
  remuneration.  Whether it is for being the "sysop" per se, I 
  guess you would have to look at her contract.

       As to whether that gives -her- some kind of NRA sanction I 
  don't know.  But she certainly is getting NRA/ILA money now.

       And the NRA/ILA BBS certainly is "sanctioned" by the NRA.  
  They are running full page ads in this months magazines telling 
  all about it.

       As to Tanya as a person.  The people I know that have met 
  her, all have nothing but good things to say about her.  The 
  couple of times I have spoken to her on the phone, I have found 
  her warm, informative, and helpful.  I know that she has been 
  involved in working to protect our 2nd Amendment Rights for some 
  time.  And her BnB BBS is one of the oldest 2nd Amendment boards 
  around.

       My --sole-- "problem" with Tanya is that she doesn't seem 
  to know much about recent improvements and offerings in BBS 
  software.

       TTFN -- Charlie
---
  SLMR 2.0 #543  The War On Guns is a War on the Constitution!
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: STOLEN **'91 TOYOTA 4 RUNNER
Date: 16 Sep 92 02:59:40 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <BuMz2B.KI2@wsrcc.com>, wolfgang@wsrcc.com (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht) writes:
> According to the newspapers there has recently been a drastic jump in
> at-gunpoint car thefts. 

> The question is, what is the best strategy for dealing with this
> problem?  I'd be interested in seeing the net's opinions.

Snnrk!  I first read about these carnappings not more than a week ago, and
I read the papers daily.  Now today, I read that there is a big hue and cry 
to make carnapping a FEDERAL CRIME!  Yeah, right, that'll really help.
My bullshit alarm went off immediately.  What next -- cars on milk cartons?
-- 

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...
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: Seattle Buy-Back Update
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:31:21 GMT

In article <82472@bcsaic.boeing.com>, rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:

|> 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.

Stuff and nonsense.  Produce a piece of NRA literature, or a quote from any NRA
officer, while they were an officer, which states such a thing.

If you can't do that, then it's not an NRA position, past or present.

From the NRA's "We're the NRA!" brochure:

"We are totally committed to preserve the freedom of an individual law-abiding
citizen to purchase, possess, and use firearms for all legitimate purposes."

Now, if you play a few word-meaning morphs, you can make this into Wojcik's
version...

-- 
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: clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman)
Subject: Re: No Difference Between the Parties?
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 21:36:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.170646.11037@mcs.anl.gov> shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
>
>A thought WRT this discussion. Things have deteriorated so far and the
>Good Citizens of the USA (tm) have lost so much ground that we need to
>retake the high ground not just defend the little swamp that we have left.
>As far as I can tell The Libertarian party is the ONLY political party
>interested in actually rolling back the tides of tyranny.

If you have problems with the Republican party outside of gun control
issues, fine. If you have problems with George Bush but not the rest
of the Republican party in general, join the club.

The above included text is what I have come to expect of the Libertarians.
They post vague, emotive generalities and cannot back it up with any
substance.  I have seen numerous postings over the years on this newsgroup
along the lines of: "If you support the RKBA, the Demopublicans are of
no use to you! Vote Libertarian!!"  When I ask why we shouldn't just replace
Bush with Kemp (or Marrou, for that matter) and replace Democrats in
Congress with Republicans, the answer always turns to the War on Drugs or
whatever.

I say, if the RKBA is your primary concern, a far more realistic and achievable
goal is to replace as many Democrats as possible in Congress with Republicans.
If the Republicans got a majority and controlled the committees, this garbage
from the antigun crowd would never make it out of committee.

If someone has evidence to the contrary, please post the recorded votes from
Congress in the last 20 years or so that support your case, as I previously
requested.

Having known Libertarians and read their literature and postings over the
years, it is obvious that they think they must maintain the facade of being
equally opposed to the Republicans and the Democrats.  They are afraid to
say, "We disagree with the Republicans about foreign policy and the War on
Drugs, and with the Democrats on almost everything."  It would harm their
quest for a distinct identity.  The fact that Republicans who were not
happy with the Nixon crowd were the primary founders of the Libertarian
Party, not discontented Democrats, underscores my point.  Libertarians
desperately want to distance themselves from Republicans, and hence the
chic cynicism about the lack of difference between the parties, which they
cannot quantitatively demonstrate through recorded Congressional votes.

Why don't Libertarians just admit, "There are significant differences between
Republicans and Democrats, but we have significant differences with both
of them?"  In other words, why not tell the truth, instead of using ignorance
and shallow, trendy voter cynicism to their advantage?
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is seldom that any liberty is lost all at once." David Hume
|||  clc5q@virginia.edu (Clark L. Coleman)
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Gun Purchase Laws
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 16:42:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.194119.4843@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>>None at all (at least not legally): All sales through a dealer
>>require filling out a federal record of sale.

>Not all sales have to go through a dealer!  Many states do NOT
>track secondary, casual, sales.  Federal law only tracks dealer
>sales.  

I've always wondered about the wisdom of such sales: The buyer certainly
gets a good deal, but I'd think the seller could get into alot of
trouble that way. If the gun were used in a crime, the police could
track it as far as the seller. Wouldn't he be in an awkard position
of explaining that he wasn't responsible, no longer owned the gun, etc...
Without a record of the sale, the police could make his life very difficult.

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Text of S. 2913 (Chafee handgun confiscation)
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:51:02 GMT
Organization: Twilight Zone

In article <1623@tnc.UUCP> m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY) writes:
>
>I wonder if there are any job openings for computer geeks in
>Switzerland or the former Soviet Union?
>
>I've got a feeling I'll be moving there within the next ten years to
>retain whatever shreds of freedom I have left.
>

	You *see*??!  I TOLD you it would start happening!

	-Andy V.
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Tuesday, 8 Sep 1992 21:29:17 MST
From: Shooting Club at ASU <GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Civil immunity states (was Re: Hand-loads for defens)



Arizona Constitution:  Article II, Section 26

"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of
himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this
section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or
corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of
men."

Arizona Revised Statutes:  Title 13, Chapter 4, Section 13-411, Just-
ification.
Discusses lawful use of lethal force.  If you reasonably believe it is
immediately necessary to prevent the commission of certain crimes,
you are justified in using deadly force:

    "A.   Use of force in crime prevention.

     13-1704  arson of an occupied structure,
     13-1507, -1508  burglary in the second or first degree,
     13-1304  kidnapping,
     13-1103  manslaughter,
     13-1104, -1105  murder in the second or first degree,
     13-1405  sexual conduct with a minor,
     13-1406  sexual assault,
     13-1410  child molestation,
     13-1904  armed robbery,
     13-1204  aggravated assault."

    "B.   There is no duty to retreat."

Thank you - AIM FOR SAFETY!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns