HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Carol Moseley Braun Given Official HCI Stamp of Approval
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:52:58 GMT
Keywords: Illinois Democratic Senatorial Candidate


Well, the local/national news media darling Democratic Senatorial
candidate Carol Moseley Braun comes out squarely in favor of destroying
the RKBA, endorsed by none other than Mr. Brady himself:

		JAMES BRADY endorses Braun
		
		Former Reagan administration White House Press
		Secretary James Brady on Monday receives the C. Everett
		Koop Health Advocate Award from the American Society
		for Health Care Marketing at the Hyatt Regency. Brady
		pushed for passage of a federal handgun control law
		and endorsed Democratic Senatorial candidate Carol
		Moseley Braun during a visit to Chicago. "Because of
		political grandstanding, the Brady Bill has been held
		hostage to a crime bill, which has been stalled for
		nine months," Brady said. 
		
		[Chicago Tribune Evening Update, Sept. 14, 1992]
		
The Republican Senatorial campaign by candidate Rich Williamson is
handicapped by a drastic lack of funds [Ms. Braun's campaign is
receiving donations around the country, as well as quite ample
news media coverage.], and is in need of VOLUNTEERS as well. According
to the NRA, Rich Williamson is definitely the PRO-GUN vote in the
election.

If Ms. Braun is not defeated in the general election in November, you
can count on Illinois reelecting her again and AGAIN to the Senate,
making her a sure-fire 100% Handgun Control Inc. supporter. This means
into the 21st century Carol Moseley Braun will vote like Sens. Simon/
Kennedy/Metzenbaum/et al., and gun owners voices will be muted for
decades. To the victors go the spoils, and HCI will cheer loudly and
mightily for such a victory.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
! HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contact to contribute whatever you can:

		Rich Williamson for U.S. Senate
		29 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1192
		Chicago, Illinois 60603
		
		312/641-1992

Get interested parties involved if you can't get involved yourself; He
needs _ALL_ the help he can get.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: roddier@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Dominique Roddier)
Subject: Re: Guns, and the necessity to trust our governement.
Keywords: guns and surrealism
Organization: University of Engineering, College of Engineering
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 08:19:43 GMT

In article <dusek.714861730@shale>, dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James Dusek) writes:
|> pelegrin@zephyr.greco-prog.fr (Francois PELLEGRINI) writes:
|> >In article <dusek.714328776@shale>, dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James Dusek) writes:
|> >|> pelegrin@brol.greco-prog.fr (Francois PELLEGRINI) writes:
|> >|> >  he wants to play Rambo in a foreign country, as he is allowed to by
|> >|> >  the brand-new U.S. law (A-me-ri-ca !! A-me-ri-ca !!!!!).
|> >|> 	What law are you talking about? And please refrain from America
|> >|> bashing.
|> >	I was talking about the U.S. Supreme Court saying that it was not
|> >anti-constitutional to have american forces arrest people outside the frontiers
|> >of the United States, whether the implied foreign country agreed or not.

|> 	This doens't allow U.S. citizans to play Rambo in other
|> countries. It allows the U.S. goverment to arrest someone who is
|> trying to escape justice in the U.S.

Yeah so Rambo is paid by the US goverment, That doesn't make him
a terrorist right...

|> >	This is the kind of actions I cannot refrain from bashing...
|> >	And I bash who I want, whenever I want to!! Na!

|> 	Bash away. After all we did pull your ass out of two wars. Or
|> did the French forget WW2 already? I remember the French army performed 
|> soooo well against the German army.

Dude, where were you in 45?  ok so the "we", please take it back, your parents
probably, but after reading the stupidities you can write, I am sure that
they wouldn't want you in the army!

oh also, could you stop the fuckin cross posting, I erased my kill file, 
and I do not wish to install it again, and that RE: guns and the blabla
has lasted long enough, nobody in scf is interesed anymore.
Thanks.

Dominique
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Florio vetoes repeal of NJ "Assault Weapon" ban
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:11:17 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / meyers@rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) / 12:18 pm  Sep 11, 1992 /

>     Mr. Florio's gun ban targeted about five dozen kinds of large-
>magazine and semiautomatic weapons.  Included are guns capable of
>firing more than 15 rounds in six seconds and semiautomatic shotguns
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>capable of holding more than six rounds or equipped with a folding
>stock.  The repeal would legalize all assault weapons banned under the
>law except for AK-47s and Uzis.

What a silly  criteria.  Heck, I know people who can do that with six shot
REVOLVERS!  I myself can do 12 rounds in 10 seconds and actually hit what 
I'm shooting at.  I know a fellow who is slowly climbing to the top of 
the IPSC circles (1911 stock gun class) who could get off more than 
15 rounds in that time.  His reload times are around 1 second and his cyclic 
rate fire is around 300 rpm.  Even with 8 round magazines this translates 
to a pretty impressive rate of fire, and he is hitting what he is shooting
at!

As he says, you know you are doing it right when the brass is still falling
back on you after you've replaced your magazine and holstered your gun..

Rick.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: JDs (was Re: Clinton in _Rolling Stone_ ...)
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
	<1992Sep12.214220.14700@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:45:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.214220.14700@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

   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.

A slight comment (NOT correction or disagreement) here.  The trigger
mechanism for some semi-autos can be filed down, or become worn, so
that when a new shell comes into the chamber, if the trigger is still
depressed, the firing pin will not catch and the gun will fire again.
This is NOT the same thing as a full-auto conversion.  In this case,
the shell will sometimes (and in some models frequently) fire before
the bolt if fully closed. This can be extremely dangerous, and should
be viewed as a defect and not a conversion.  Any semi-auto with this
kind of defect that is fired continuously for any period of time WILL
malfunction, and sometimes disasterously.

Sometimes, when a wag speaks of "full-auto conversion", this may be
what they mean.  It does not qualify.

A friend's semi-auto became worn in this way, without his realizing
it.  I was firing it one day, when three rounds popped off without
intent.  It was somewhat startling.  Needless to say, we did not fire
that gun again until it was repaired.

It is sobering to reflect that, had a BATF agent been present, we
might both have been arrested for possession of an unregistered full
auto firearm.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:20728 talk.politics.misc:44358
From: larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Organization: University of Washington
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 23:49:15 GMT

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?

A foreign army plays by a different set of rules.  It is unlikely a
foreign army could subjugate the USA in the absence of another cataclysmic
event but it would take a lot of blood to find out.  One purpose for having
our own military is to keep us from finding out.

>(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.)

One of the advantages of being a superpower is that you get to choose
(mostly) where you fight your wars.  Since the Civil War, we have, with
very minor exceptions, arranged to fight ours on someone else's turf.

--
Larry                                   |   Thunder makes all the noise;
                                        |   lightning gets the job done.
larryd@milton.washington.edu
I have my opinion; the university has its own.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:20933 rec.martial-arts:12156
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,rec.martial-arts
Subject: Re: A little on self defense...
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:43:53 GMT
Organization: Western Washington University

garry@alice.att.com (garry hodgson) writes:

>>	I would agree.  Boxing, karate, etc are nice hobbies, but they
>>are just recreation.  They cannot hope to make up the difference between 
>>115 and 230 lbs, nor between one person and a group of thugs.

>I would disagree, vigorously.  I know a number of people who have, indeed,
>made up such differences.  Do you seriously believe that MA training is
>of no value in defending yourself?

	"No value".  I have too many flames on this to respond to each one.
I obviously have come across more strongly than I meant.  
MA training has value.

I believe MA can give you an edge, certainly, in minimizing or escaping
harm.   However I also believe many scum types are going to _also_ be
skilled to some degree.   The edge it gives you may not be significant,
enough to overcome the attackers MA skills (perhaps simply "street" 
fighting, rather than any school), will likely not be enough to overcome
a large size and strength difference, and _very likely_ will not be enough
to overcome a group of attackers, armed, skilled or otherwise.

I also think most scum/potential-attacker types will avoid attacking you
unless they see an obvious imbalance in size or numbers.

Again, I think MA can provide an edge, but that edge will not likely
protect even a very skilled small woman or tiny man from a much larger 
and stronger attacker (or a gang). 

My assumption is that the attacker(s) is no dummy, and has some strength,
speed, and skill himself.  I believe this to freqently be the case.

Jim Del Vecchio
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: 8 Sep 92 17:53:44 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) /  6:49 pm  Sep  7, 1992 /

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

have another one....

>Dave

I think Susan IS still around...  On the other hand, even she would 
probably be able to figure out the point.

Rick.
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 9 Sep 92 02:29:29 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <1992Sep8.220528.23255@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu 
(Charles Scripter) writes:

}If "the people" are a subset, which subset ...

Do not expect Mr. Darcy to understand what you meant, he has a rather
bizarre concept of set theory...


       TTTTTTTTTT    SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      K   K    CCCCCCC
           T         S             A       A      K  K     C
           T         S             A       A      K K      C
           T         SSSSSSSS      AAAAAAAAA      KK       C
           T                S      A       A      K K      C  
           T                S      A       A      K  K     C
           T         SSSSSSSS      A       A      K   K    CCCCCCC

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
 I'm not into astrology.  We Aries folk aren't fooled by stuff like that.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: stedee@auto-trol.com (Steve Deemer)
Subject: Re: JDs (was Re: Clinton in _Rolling Stone_ ...)
Organization: Auto-trol Technology Corporation
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:23:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.025543.21207@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>: In article <1992Sep11.224412.24310@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
-deleted-
>
>: 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.

Well, I could use the money, but actually converting a firearm to full-auto
is a big time Federal felony, $100,000 and/or 10 years penalty.  Would you
pay $1000 for blueprints describing how to convert a fifty-year old
Wards .22 rifle to full-auto?  For this rifle, the conversion involves
a modification to the sear (which is the little do-dad that grabs the
firing pin as it resets after a shot).

I'm willing to "put up" to the limit of the law.  Are you?

>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.

I don't understand this statement.  A semi-auto firearm is one that
fires the loaded round, automatically loads a new round, and prepares 
the action for firing for each trigger pull.  The only functional
difference between this and full auto operation is that there exists
some mechanism in a semi-auto to stop the action at the point where
it's ready to fire the next round.  Disable this mechanism, and you have
a full-auto weapon.  This isn't rocket science.  Every full-auto firearm
I'm familiar with has a semi-auto mode, which is a pretty strong 
suggestion that full- and semi-auto designs are essentially the same
thing, working in two different modes.  Plus, a semi-auto can sometimes
go full-auto by accident, resulting in a runaway gun as described above.
However, an intentional conversion to full-auto operation doesn't
result in the "all-or-nothing effect".

>
-deleted-
>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.
>
A ROF between 300-600 rounds/minute is considered optimal for a 
small arm.  Many weapons have been produced with a much higher 
rate-of-fire.  The MAC M-10 has a cyclic rate of about 1200 rpm,
which is way past the limit of controllable.

Steven Deemer
stedee@auto-trol.com

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: PROponent postings
Summary: Anybody else like having them?
Keywords: keep, remove
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 08:00:25 GMT

	Dennis Carney has graciously taken the time to post some of the
PROponent articles.  I'm just posting this to voice my note of thanks
for forwarding the information, and asking for feedback to Dennis.

	If you like it, mail him and let him know his efforts are
appreciated.  If you don't, mail him anyway and tell him you'd like
him to quit posting it.  If the latter view is common, perhaps a mailing
list can be set up?

	As every gun owner knows, pre-emptive action beats having to
defend yourself (within reasonable limits).  That's all I'm trying to
do with this subject.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: jdw@unislc.uucp (James Warren)
Subject: Re: Ruger boycott
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:25:27 GMT

From article <1992Sep14.212842.25866@dg-rtp.dg.com>, by meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers):
> In article <BuDFsF.6u1@medar.com> jseymour@medar.com (James Seymour) writes:
> [ ... ]
>>What is it Bill Ruger has done?  I'm especially curious being as I've
>>always been a Ruger (product) fan.  But this could change *real* *quick*.
> 
> Here's my favorite bit of past eloquence on the subject:
> --------------------------------------------------------
>>Path: dg-rtp!dgcad!amdcad!sun!exodus!newstop!sun-barr!lll-winken!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ctbilbo!ray
>>From: ray@ctbilbo.UUCP (Ray Ward)
>>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>>Subject: Re: Minority Opinion on Bill Ruger
>>Keywords: Ruger boycott
>>Message-ID: <172@ctbilbo.UUCP>
>>Date: 22 Mar 91 21:40:44 GMT
>>References: <31730@mimsy.umd.edu>
>>Lines: 100
>>
>>
[...]
>>A boycott is the most appropriate consequence for his attempted money-grab.
>>Yes, he is hurting some.

How long should this boycott be?  Long enough to put Ruger out of
business?  How will we know when he has suffered enough?

What about boycotting those arms makers (and others) that Ruger makes 
parts for?  This would likely have more effect on his business than 
just refusing to buy parts with the Ruger label.

What about others who have done the same thing (Colt, for instance)?  

>>                          Our boycott of Mossberg has had encouraging
>>results.

What good results are these, I have seen nothing of great value come
about.

>>          If the boycott against Ruger spreads and hurts him still more,
>>perhaps he will not be so quick to betray us in the future.

True, perhaps his company will just go away and nothing good will come of
it, too.  I don't see how loosing, or just damaging, one of the very few
competetors in the firearms market place can make life better for us
shooters.  It seems to me that there ought to be some better way to let
him know how we feel than damaging his company. 

>>
>>-- 
>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>>Ray Ward                                          Email:  uunet!ctbilbo!ray  
>>Voice:  (214) 991-8338x226, (800) 331-7032        Fax  :  (214) 991-8968     
>>=-=-=-=-  There _are_ simple answers, just no _easy_ ones. -- R.R. -=-=-=-=
>>
From: bws20@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Brian W Simmons)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Why a sawed-off shotgun?
Date: 8 Sep 92 13:57:59 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems to me that murdering a federal law enforcement official is
sufficient reason for bloodshed.  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]

bws

--
**************************************************************************
bws20@amail.amdahl.com      the human heart holds hidden treasures,
brian wesley simmons          in secret kept, in silence sealed
**************************************************************************
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: A question on U.S. Constitution
Date: 7 Sep 92 17:28:53 GMT
	<1992Sep1.211156.29314@mtu.edu>
	<1992Sep2.031427.10186@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Distribution: na
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA

I missed Mr. Scripter's original response, so I am following up to Mr.
Crary's post.

In article <1992Sep2.031427.10186@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

   >> No.  Due process means whatever the state says is due process.  In
   >> general, this means a court order, a warrent, or probable cause
   >> immediately witnessed by the arresting officer.  

   >This is suspect.  If this is true, then the State, or Feds, can
   >say "You have blue eyes, and the LAW says all persons with blue
   >eyes are to report to the disintegration chamber".  I do not
   >believe this constitutes "due process"; It gives far too much power
   >to the government.  Do you think the Founding Fathers would allow
   >*any* government this much power?...  I wonder if they mention
   >what they meant by "due process"; Anyone have any pointers?

Well, "due process" in general is a "phrase of art", and leaves a
whole lot up to the interpreting body.  As Mr. Crary points out:

   The full phrase is "due process of law." I think, "of law" means
   British common law. The American legal system was based on common law
   and many early Supreme Court rulings refer to British precedents or
   authorities (such as Blackstone.)

   I suspect, however, that the Supreme Court's rulings have frozen this
   meaning somewhat. (That is, so that a state can't simply make due
   process whatever they like.)

Correct.  A strict constructionist would probably limit "due process"
to the understanding of the time, which was based on British common
law.  Heaven knows what a more liberal interpretation would mean.

It is worth noting that in specific cases, such as search and seizure,
the Constitution did not depend on "due process of law" in those
cases, but specified a warrant based upon probably cause, and stated
what the warrant had to include.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns