HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: crum@fcom.cc.utah.edu (Gary Crum)
Subject: U.S. gun laws, predictions wanted
Organization: University of Utah
Date: 19 Aug 92 10:20:27

Are U.S. and state laws banning possession of some guns going to keep
"growing", especially if democrats win offices such as U.S. President?
I would like to hear some predictions/estimates/speculation about this,
as specific as possible, especially as it relates to rifles.

For example, it seems that the law as it currently stands has resulted
in some quirks, such as the availability at reasonable prices of
AK-like 7.62x39 Chinese-made rifles only with thumbhole stocks and not
with pistol grip stocks, and some companies sell these in California
but others do not (from looking at Shotgun News).  Do people think
that even the "sporterized" AK-like rifles will be banned or made to
be very expensive if Clinton is elected president?  If so, then in
what time frame?  Two years?  Does the U.S. President, or congress,
have control of the BATF?

Another example is the relatively good H&K-91 / G-3 design.  As I
understand, several well-designed semi-automatic rifles like the HK-91
are now prevented from being imported into the U.S., and this ban was
put into effect within the last few years (1989?).  Also, U.S.-made
"copies" of these good designs, such as the Springfield Armory SAR-8,
have been discontinued (voluntarily?) by their U.S. manufacturers.  HK
is now selling the SR-9, a peculiar variation on the HK-91 that BATF
allows to be imported.  And, I don't see U.S. manufacturers coming up
with new designs.  The gun industry is quite stagnant compared to the
car and computer industries.

Just wondering if people have an idea of the time frame and an
estimation of the details of the future over the next few years.  Can
things get better and more free, e.g. if the people re-elect Bush, pay
more attention to the Libertarian Party, and some court cases get to
the supreme court?

Gary
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: gray@hawkmoon.mn.org (Bill Gray)
Subject: Re: CLINTON NEW TEXT: GUN CONTROL
Organization: Demi-Public System (One of the Eternal Champions); Eagan, MN, 55123-2507, USA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 06:23:02 GMT

fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary) writes:

(quoting someone whose ID I lost--sorry!)
>>To enforce which laws?  Will they be in charge of enforcing Federal Law,
>>duplicating the work of the FBI?  Or will they merely enforce local laws?
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Either way, this proposal makes me REAL nervous.

[snip]

>It would not, however, duplicate the FBI's work: The FBI is not a
>police force. It most closely resembles police plaincloaths men or
>investigators. They investigate crimes but only after the fact, and
>only crimes that exceed the authority of local officials. They do
>_not_ patrol cities, looking for crimes in progress or suspicious
>actions or persons (that is, the FBI doesn't spend it's time looking
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>ofer your shoulder to make sure you are a "good" citizen.) I'm don't
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>like the idea of 100,000 federal police, of uncertain responsibility,
>doing this.

Frank is a generally well-informed writer whose statements can usually
be relied upon.  Hence, I believe him when he says the FBI isn't peering
over my shoulder to be sure I am a good citizen.

I have two questions for Frank that might clarify this a wee bit for me,
if he's willing:

1.)  The FBI doesn't look over my shoulder to see if I'm a good citizen.
     Ok, I'll buy that.  But tell me:  When did they stop?  And how do you
     _know_ they stopped?  They damned well *used* to. . . 

2.)  Since they aren't going to worry about my being a good citizen, why
     do they want me to pay for creating an inferior telecommunications
     system *designed* to make their wiretaps trivially easy?  Why do they
     object to my having access to cryptographic technology to keep my private
     documents private?  (Ok, so it was three questions. . .)

>Worse, this force would be formed from former military personel. Military
>training does not lend it self to good police behavior, nor do people
>fresh out of the armed forces have the same attitude toward basic rights
>as civilians (after spending 4 or more years under the Uniform Code of
>Military Justice.)

Hmmm.  Frank, I truly hate to be argumentative, but if you are striving to
contrast the military mindset with the police mindset WRT basic rights,
I remain uncomforted.  I see the local police as stormtrooper wannabees.
The ex military who are attracted into the cops arfe going to be stormtrooper
hasbeens.  Derned if I know which scares me more. . .

*Sigh*

The Commitee on State Secur^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
^H^H National Police Korps is a genuinely more frightening vision than
a local chapter of the Crips or Bloods.

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: reb@cup.portal.com (Richard Earl Benedict)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: A question on U.S. Constitution
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 09:24:55 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world

Using the Fifth Amendment against gun bans is not likely to be very
successful.  An NRA lawyer advised us in reference to the "assault
rifle" ban in Boston that the Fifth Amendment requires compensation
only when private property is taken for public use.  If a law makes
something you own contraband, you're out of luck.  A better approach
might be to claim "ex post facto," but you may only succeed in
grandfathering the guns currently owned.

Rich Benedict

reb@cup.portal.com | "Those who beat their swords into plowshares
dick@dragonsys.com |       will plow for those who don't."
From: smpod@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:25:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: who knows
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes...
..- well at least i know for a fact that i've got less of a chance
>of getting shot dead where i come from than you do bub. 

I'm sure an animal in a cage would feel secure too!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Keywords: joke, very funny, haha, etc.
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:19:33 GMT

In article <14138@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.020612.7417@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>In article <14106@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>>>Hmmm. Did they have rocket launchers and semi-automatic rifles when the
>>>second amendment was passed?  Just wondering?
>>
>>They had rocket launchers and they had "shoot lots of times with out
>>any user action" guns long before the American Revolution.  Semi-auto
>>is a relatively modern idea, say 1870 or so.  (Repeaters, even those
>>that work by pulling the trigger repeatedly, predate semi-autos.)
>
>Really?  What do they hunt with them?

In the American revolution, some "hunted" British-affiliated soldiers
while others "hunted" uppity colonials.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 23:47:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.155553.12443@microsoft.com>, alane@microsoft.com
(Alan Ezekiel) writes:

> Forgive my lack of clarity.  In this particular case, the woman would
> have been dead even if she had been armed.
> 
> My point was a political one: since the enforcement agencies of our
> government (the police and the judicial system) cannot be trusted to
> discipline their own members, who will protect us from our protectors?
> 
> Having an armed population limits the degree to which we can be
> oppressed.  It is not a panacea which prevents wrongful death in
> all cases, but it *is* likely to prevent some of the worst excesses
> of government.

Just a random thought here.  Do you think that the police, and SWAT teams
would be as likely to pull this stuff if the entire neighborhood was
heavily armed?  In a case like that, an attack on a neighbors house
could be a death sentance for the attacking force... (especially in
areas where everyone knows their neighbors).

> My comments were directed at those people who believe that disarming
> everybody except the police is somehow a good idea.

Hmmm... I think just the opposite.  Everyone should be armed, except the
police (after all, they have quite effectively shown their incompetance).

-- 
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: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: CLINTON NEW TEXT: GUN CONTROL
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 02:42:06 GMT

	If this is true, I may just vote for Bush.  Why?  I planned
on voting Libertarian, but if this extreme is what the Clinton/Gore
ticket can assure me, perhaps I'm better off voting so they lose
rather than so all of them get the message?  There's always '96 for
voting Libertarian, but by then what else will I have lost if my
vote didn't help defeat what we all saw?

	This is going to require some serious soul-searching.

<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
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 22:17:07 GMT

In article <cthong.714250623@sfu.ca>, cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong)
writes:

> then why are ammunition diameters getting larger and larger by the decade?

Actually, they're not.  In the "olden days", it was more common for people
to own large caliber rifles.  Muzzleloaders were often greater than .50
cailber.  I've heard of some as high as .69 caliber.  When cartridge guns
came out, the 45-70, and 50-70 were popular (.45, and .50 bullets).  These
bullets were somewhere around 500 grains (whereas a .22LR bullet is 40
grains, and a 30-06 is usually loaded between 150 and 220 grains).

One reason ammunition is getting smaller is that people don't like the
kick from big guns.  There are a lot of folks who think a 30-06 (.30 caliber
cartridge from the year 1906) kicks too hard.

> and how do you account for less killing power, decreased calibres and modern 
> doo hickeys like .5 semi autos and caseless ammunition?

Is this consistant with your previous sentence?

Which .50 caliber rifle are you talking about?  There was a .50 caliber
machinegun used in WWII.  I think they took that cartridge and chambered
a bolt action rifle for it (a military sniper rifle).  Incidentally, few
folks would shoot one of these; They think they kick *way too hard*.

I assume that you have somehow concluded that caseless ammunition is
somehow inherently more deadly than cased ammunition.  I don't follow
your logic.  Are you suggesting that "modern doo hickeys" are inherently
dangerous?  Perhaps "modern doo hickeys" like radios, TVs, and computers
should be banned...

The interest in caseless ammunition is largely driven by the military.
Caseless ammunition would be lighter, and a soldier could carry more ammo.
I don't believe anyone has succeeded in making caseless ammo that satisfies
the military's needs (like being waterproof).

It appears that the main point of your post is that you don't understand
firearms, and as a result, you fear them.

Another suggestion for your posts, Chris.  It easier to read these if
you edit out the stuff you're not responding to.

-- 
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
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:19876 soc.culture.french:6060
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Paintball anyone?
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:12:11 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

Hello,

I just had an idea and wanted to solicit peoples' reactions to it.

I was reading a paintball magazine a while back and I was amazed at
how much its political articles reminded me of firearm magazines.
It seems like a lot of Safety Nazis are trying to legislate against
paintball, much like they attempts firearm legislation.

Anyway, I was wondering whether people think the NRA might be willing
to take an interest in paintball.  True, it would be additional work
BUT I imagine it could easily add a LOT of new members to the NRA...

Comments?

   don
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: UFO "October Surprise" and USA TAKEOVER?!
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 03:47:23 GMT

jbf@wts.com (Jens B. Fiederer) writes:

>In article <13334.2a8a801c@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
>>
>>It might have something to do with the fact that the population od the
>>US is greater than the population of Europe.
>>
>		Population	Area (square km)	Density (/square km)

>US		246 million	9.4 million		26
>Japan		123		0.3 million		331
>Euro 12		324 million	2.4 million		145

>"Euro 12" only includes members of the European "community"; i.e., Austria,
>Switzerland, Scandinavia, and Eastern Europe are not counted (except for
>Greece).  I suspect it is more a question of local density and mixing (in
>other words, we look specifically at the places where it is bad) than
>overall population or density stats....

And this is despite two major wars this century, in which Europeans
(with some belated help from the USA) managed to kill off far more of
their population than has died from criminal violence in the USA.
And if you include the Balkans, the tragedy is that they are still 
doing it.  Perhaps we should not harp too much on the peaceful nature
of Europe.

Geoff Miller (g-miller@adfa.oz.au) | "The first duty of power is to perpetuate
Computer Centre                    | itself.  The first duty of free men is to
Australian Defence Force Academy   | resist it."  Mike Resnick
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Clinton and Suicides, injuries, and Vigilantees.
Date: 21 Aug 92 19:57:14 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Aug21.163208.5990@igor.tamri.com>, donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
> In article <4400223@iftccu.boeing.com> bressler@iftccu.boeing.com

> >I haven't read it, so I can't say.  I have been told however that it 
> >does recommend a plastic bag and a rubber band.  Relatively quick, 
> >painless and foolproof.  Those who want to ban suicide had better 
> >plan on a bare rubber room for each of us....  Even that won't stop 
> >someone who is REALLY determined.
> 
> Huh?  It says that death by asphyxiation is painless?  I've heard that
> it's an INCREDIBLY painful way to go...

No, what he recommends is a large dose of drugs, THEN the bag and rubber
band.  It's to avoid you taking too small a dose and then waking up sick
or crippled later.

I knew that part from interviews, but I don't know what he has to say
about guns.
-- 

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: cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong)
Subject: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:27:48 GMT

smpod@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) writes:

>cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes...
>..- well at least i know for a fact that i've got less of a chance
>>of getting shot dead where i come from than you do bub. 
and whos the caged one here eh? wjo feels insecure without his weapon?
who harbours a greater mistrust of the govt? who feels more anxiety when
walking down main street at 2 am in the morning if they don't have their 
gun with them eh? who is more afraid to travel and have their nationality 
plastered all over their suitcase ? we both have cages it seems.
but yours seems to have invisible bars eh?
>I'm sure an animal in a cage would feel secure too!
Date: Wednesday, 12 Aug 1992 15:51:51 EDT
From: <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Distribution: usa
Subject: Re: I joined today
 <8110277@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>

In article <8110277@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, post@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (David Post) says:
>
>
>Of course, I wonder if the NRA will aggressively fight for gun rights for
>the rest of my life.  They might be starting to do a good job now, but for
>how long?
>
>Maybe another group like the Firearms Coalition or ???? would be better.

Or maybe not. Small splinter groups come and go very quickly.

Nobody can predict the future, but it is generally not a wish move to
divide one's forces in the middle of a battle.

General Custer knew that. Let's not learn it all over again when
facing the anti-gun, anti-hunting, anti-rights, anti-individual,
anti-damn-near-everything-American forces.

W. K. Gorman
NRA Life
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton,soc.culture.usa
From: reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:42:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.211211.7150@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug15.220349.23619@news.Hawaii.Edu> gerard@caliban.soest.hawaii.edu (Gerard Fryer) writes:

>>It's hardly an inconvenient constitutional question!  Go read your
>>Constitution.  Look at the second amendment (ALL of it). Then ask
>>yourself if it says, or even implies, anything about an individual's
>>right to bear arms.
>
>"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
>State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
>infringed."
>
>In 1749, Fletcher's Political Works was published.  It defined
>a "well regulated militia" as an armed people NOT under the control
>of govt.  Madison et al used the term similarly.

And the Oxford English Dictionary defines "well-regulated", when said of
troops, as "well-disciplined".  Nothing more, and certainly not "under
government control".

>"right of the people" sure seems to say something about individuals,
>if the other uses of that term in the constitution are any guide.

And note that it says "the right of the people", not "the right
of the militia".  If that's what they'd meant, they'd have said
it.

More to the point, other writings by Jefferson et. al clearly indicate
that they wanted the general public to be armed, as a safeguard against
tyrannical government.  Quibbling over terms is rather silly when the
authors of the constitution have stated very clearly what they meant.

Whether this was a good idea can be debated, but that this was
their intent is beyond dispute.

>>The Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that the second amendment
>>gives the States the right to maintain their own militia.  Period.

>Really?  Feel free to provide two case cites supporting that
>contention.  I've made sure that this posting will go to a group of
>people who will be happy to cite supreme court cases where they don't
>agree with that claim.

>In other words, the people who believe in the individual rights
>interpretation can "put up", can the collectivists?  Or, will they
>"shut up" until the coast is clear before yelling their unsupported
>claim again.

Oh, take a guess!

To be fair, the Supreme Court has been somewhat inconsistent on this
subject.  (I don't have a case summary online, but I'm sure someone
does.)

I would like to see Mr. Fryer cite some cases, though.  In doing the
research, he'll learn a thing or two about just how flaky the S.C.
can be.

=====================================================================
Reid Kneeland
reid@ttidca.tti.com  (that's MISTER reid@ttidca.tti.com to you!)
{philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,rdlvax,retix,rutgers}!ttidca!reid
Transaction Technology Inc., Santa Monica, CA, USA (310) 450-9111 x2499
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily etc etc...

Never trust a man who can count to 1,023 on his fingers.
From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Concealed Carry Bill in Texas?
Keywords: CCW concealed carry
Date: 19 Aug 92 01:13:28 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

A few weeks ago a bill was introduced in the Texas Legislature to establish
a CCW permit system in Texas.  Unfortunately, I only got the ten-second
liberal-media-oriented "let's just mention it, but give no specifics, and never
bring it up again" news report, so I don't know what is going on with it.
Does anyone have more information on this, perhaps even text and/or specifics?

On a completely different note, in regards to the recent "Do you support the
War on Drugs or not?" thread, just remember this:  for all those who don't
support it and are thinking of choosing between Bush and Clinton, just
remember that BOTH support continuing the program (i.e., don't just get
pissed at Bush for his part in what has already occurred, because Clinton
won't be any different on this issue).  Just thought that ought to be pointed
out.

(I am not sure exactly where I stand on this particular issue, at present.)

Regards,
Mike Ruff
U.T. Austin
From: dadams@cray.com (David Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platfo
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:54:19 GMT
Reply-To: dadams@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

In article 14138@auspex-gw.auspex.com, johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
|In article <1992Aug18.020612.7417@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
||In article <14106@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
||>Hmmm. Did they have rocket launchers and semi-automatic rifles when the
||>second amendment was passed?  Just wondering?
||
||They had rocket launchers and they had "shoot lots of times with out
||any user action" guns long before the American Revolution.  Semi-auto
||is a relatively modern idea, say 1870 or so.  (Repeaters, even those
||that work by pulling the trigger repeatedly, predate semi-autos.)
|
|Really?  What do they hunt with them?

The "red-coated" dears.  ;^)



|
|I can really be a pain in the ass sometimes...

Oh yes, they hunted those too.  ;^)


|
|-- 
|+============================================================================++
|| John Fereira            "Is that all you ever think about?"                |
|| johnf@auspex.com                                                           |
|+============================================================================++



---
--David C. Adams   dadams@cray.com
___________________________________________________________________
       member--Minnesotans for Global Warming.