HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Time-Warner
Date: 31 Dec 1992 13:59:12 GMT
Organization: Hand Held Products, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: dale.handheld.com

In article <168CD11D86.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David  
Veal) writes:
> In article <lk48gfINN5it@news.bbn.com>
> gonzalez@bbn.com (Jim Gonzalez) writes:
> 
> >I don't think Time-Warner has changed its tune, as some here have suggested.
> >It's been reported on the internet mailing last that the latest Batman,
> >produced by Time-Warner's DC comics, has a story including Virginia gun
> >runners and "assault weapons".
> 
>        I don't know whether Time-Warner has or has not changed it's
> attitude, but this is certainly standard television fare.
> 

This 'special' issue was reportedly produced in response to the random gunning  
down of a Warner executive at a phone booth in New York City.

>        More to the point, though, is that TIME is owned by Time-Warner
> but is not the same thing.  Corporate entities are more than capable
> of holding two directly contradictory attitudes at the same time in
> different places.
> 
> >It was today reported that the Virginia
> >governor is distributing it to legislators, in support of his latest
> >gun control proposals.
> 
>          And to think, the last time I said that politicians lived in a
> fantasy world I thought I was exagerating.
> 

DC is supplying the comics free of charge to the Virginia legislature.  Our  
Governor, Doug Wilder, has a national agenda (and postition) in mind.  He wants  
to limit purchases to 1 gun every 30 days, to stop trafficking to New York.  As  
a Virginia law, he will be hard pressed to explain how that law will help  
Virginians in ANY way.  Other than national PR, which I don't give a damn  
about.  New York's problems lie in New York, until they face that, they are  
lying to their citizens.

BTW, the comic has the exchange taking place in Virginia Beach, whose mayor is  
now furious.  It seems Virginia Beach has very strict gun control, and requires  
a permit to buy a gun.  The real claimed sources of the trafficking is often  
stated to be Richmond, but there, too, a permit is required to buy AND sell a  
gun.  There are no gun stores in Richmond.  There are some in the surrounding  
counties, those are the alleged sources.  The media never gets it right.

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
>                University of Tennessee, Knoxville
>                PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu

Jim (Native Virginian) De Arras

--
Jim De Arras            | The opinions expressed herein are
Hand Held Products, Inc.| not necessarily those of Hand 
804.784.3090 voice      | Held Products, Inc., and may not 
804.784.3147 FAX        | even be mine. Use at your own risk
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: BATF 800 Number
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:07:44 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns

As quoted from <1992Dec30.182110.9434@cbnews.cb.att.com> by lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani):

> In article <C02xJ2.D63@NCoast.ORG> cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton) writes:
> >
> >
> >Could somebody be so kind as to post or e-mail me BATF's 800 number?  I 
> >know somebody who'd actually like to turn in a CRIMINAL using it, but I
> >don't have it handy.  I'd like to get this ASAP, as the person in question
> >is in fact apparently dangerous.  From what I'm told, he should appeal to
> >BATF's interests in a number of ways.
> >
> >Let's see if they're as zealous in harrassing CRIMINALS....
> 
> The "turn in a 'scumbag' number" is 1-800-ATF-GUNS

Thanks.  I'm sure he'll get off with a stern lecture about bombing people's
houses and felons possessing firearms.... :(

I plan to post the results if anything comes of it.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The War On Drugs and the National Guard
Date: 29 Dec 92 19:52:20 GMT
	<DLB.92Dec29120949@fanny.wash.inmet.com>
	<ARCHER.547.725656351@utkvm1.utk.edu>
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA

In article <ARCHER.547.725656351@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu
(T. Archer) writes:

   Not exactly.  You are addressing a moral issue of human rights.  I
   am, in my own naive way, trying to address a legal issue dealing
   with civil liberties.  According to the letter of the law of the
   land, the grunt on the end is freed of onus, and can't be sued by
   the victim.  That suit, or any charges, are properly placed on the
   person who made the decision: the CO.  On a moral level, I am a big
   fan of holding ALL individuals responsible for thier actions.  If
   the grunt felt that the search & seizure to be morally wrong, he
   should refuse to follow the order.  But I live in reality, and real
   morality is relative to personal cost.  The average grunt will obey
   orders to violate my civil liberties and tell me to take it up with
   his CO.  Hell, "tell it to the judge" is standard for civilian cops
   today.  On the other hand, I like to think that the average soldier
   would refuse to shoot me out of hand.

I hope not too; however, I think I have been unclear.  There are
definite limits to the extent to which a person can be released from
liability for his actions by orders from a superior.  These are legal
limits; I am not addressing moral ones (which, from my point of view,
should be more restrictive than the legal ones).  Nuremburg and other
war crime trials have established an international legal limit
concerning how much a soldier can use the "I was only following
orders" defense.  The question is: is there a similar limit in force
here?  Could a soldier be held liable for his actions despite a
chicken-shit regulation (I hope, I hope)?

Thus, I did not intend to address a moral issue of human rights, but
the legal issue of whether the regulation would hold up in a court of
law.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Lawrence Mass.
Date: 23 Dec 92 16:16:16 GMT
Organization: Boston University Physics Department


I must admit that the anti-gun control people have pointed out 
flaws that I had not considered with restriction of availabilty
of firearms and ammunition. I do however feel that mail order
ammo is ridiculous.

Guns are not the only weapons that kill. 2 men have been killed
in the greater Boston area in the past month in traffic 
disputes where someone pulled a knife. 6 people have been
killed with guns in ambush style attacks with guns.
No guns are not the only weapons out there, but they
are by far the weapon of choice with criminals.

Still,being more Anarchist/Libertarian minded, goverment controls 
of any kind are diststaful to me.

So that leaves me with the Anarcho-Capitalist Enclave.
A place where you can lower probabilities of crime.

Consider what the Police in Lawrence Mass are doing now:

In a for 4 block area known for drug dealing and prostitution
they have "sealed off" the area. Residents are given "passes".
There are checkpoints where the police will ask to your
license and registartion, they give you a card explaining why
you were stopped and they record your licence plate number.
The first effect is on Suburbanites who come into the 
city to buy drugs or sex. Not activities you want veiwed
in the harsh light of day. The second is that the high visibilty
of the police has also reduced the number of people loitering
(of which might be drug dealers and prostitutes).
It seems to be working. Streets where children dared not play
or old people dare not venture are now safe.

It may not last:
The ACLU is taking legal action against the Lawrence Police.

-sjm

-- 
Sean J. Merritt		         | "Every revolt is a cry of innocence    
Dept of Physics Boston University|  and an appeal to the essence of being."
merritt@macro.bu.edu             | Albert Camus, The Rebel
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Fight the bastards (was Re: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 22:09:54 GMT

In article <+vsr!p_@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:
>>  I have what my lawyer called an "clear case", but I can't afford to 
>>  pursue it. For over a year I contacted pro-RKBA people for help. And all
>>  I got was a bunch of lip-service (some useful, most not).
>>  Anyone with lots of money want to finance a sure-win case against Class III
>>  signiture discrinination in Lexington Ky.? 
>
>First I'd heard of your case.  You still interested in fighting the fight?
>I can't finance the whole thing right now but I would contribute to
>the cause.  I think a number of other gun rights activists in this
>group would too.

  One of the big problems is that (IMHO) there is no precedent 
established even if you win.  The police chief is not in the
least inconvenienced by your fighting the case (appearing in 
court is one of his normal duties and he is paid by the
taxpayers to do this, and his attorney is supplied too) and
then if he loses, he simply signs your form and only your form.

--henry schaffer
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: proett@tailspin.nas.nasa.gov (Thomas M. Proett)
Subject: reduction of availability
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 00:39:58 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Dec21.225051.7738@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
|> In article <MERRITT.92Dec21094400@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
|> >Armed camp society or reduction of availability. Take your pick.
|> 
|> Note the assumption that reduction of availability will affect
|> the right people.  Considering that it hasn't anywhere else ....
> --

This may be explained in a FAQ or something, but I have not seen it so...
Why is it assumed that making guns less easy to obtain will not "affect
the right people"?  Someone posted a transcription of a poster that
gave statistics about the number of murders done in various countries
where guns are not generally available and then showed the number for
the US.  The US had a gigantic number in proportion to the rest.

Doesn't this show some correlation to "more guns" ==> "more murder"?
-- 
proett@tailspin.nas.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Re: Downside to FFL?
Date: 18 Dec 92 17:41:50 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson) writes:
>
>OK, 20/20 has established how easy it is to get an FFL; why aren't all
>of us FFL holders?  What are the costs/drawbacks/restrictions/etc that
>apply to FFL holders that would disuade someone (me, perhaps?) from
>becoming one?

Here are two reasons which I find compelling:

  1. The BATF has the power to search any gun store without warning or
     warrant.  For FFLs who work out of their homes (like the now-famous
     John Lawmaster), the BATF can search your house in this fashion.

  2. FFLs are required to account for every firearm in their possession
     in their official records.  While it is (in most states) perfectly
     legal for a private citizen to own a "paperless" firearm, it is
     *not* legal for an FFL to own one.

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: Downside to FFL?
Organization: The Cat Factory
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 03:08:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.152902.14698@Firewall.Nielsen.Com> jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson) writes:
}
}OK, 20/20 has established how easy it is to get an FFL; why aren't all
}of us FFL holders?  What are the costs/drawbacks/restrictions/etc that
}apply to FFL holders that would disuade someone (me, perhaps?) from
}becoming one?

You have to give the BATF the street address (no P.O. boxes allowed) where
you're doing business and the hours you're open to the public (there must
be some).  They have the legal right to come in an inspect your books and
business premises during those hours.  If you're doing business out of
your home, as most of us would be, you're effectively giving the BATF the
right to do a no-knock, warrantless search of your home.

Though enforcement is at least as thin as the BATF's, most states and
municipalities require you to comply with their business codes as well.
That means licenses, taxes, secure storage requirements and zoning
hassles.

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                Do not meddle in the affairs of
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483  dragons, for you are crunchy
Santa Monica, CA  90405                        and go well with ketchup.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Bad cops - a perfect example
Date: 21 Dec 92 22:08:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Twilight Zone

In article <1992Dec17.190934.11772@dvorak.amd.com> markl@dvorak.amd.com (Mark Luedtke) writes:
>In article <cm=rr9f@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>rigg@ssdt-tempe.sps.mot.com (Dana Rigg) writes:
>>

>>>My brother once followed a guy for 5 blocks, waiting for him to 
>>>screw up.  

	No wonder people kill cops, pulling shit like this.

>>This came from rec.guns but the proper followup belongs here.
>>Here is a perfect example of the kind of pigs that give them all a bad
>>name.  And this guy thinks it's funny.  Maybe one of his belligerant
>>victims will put one right between his eyes one day.
>>
>>John
>
>That whole discussion on rec.guns turns my stomach.  I should not have to
>worry about being shot by a supposed law enforcement officer for openning
>my glove box or getting out of my car after being pulled over.  IMHO, it
>just supports my contention that on a daily basis, I am in more danger from
>cops than any other group, and that situation is only getting worse.

	You bet.  Cops are, by and large, out of control.  Look at the King
	incident.  Sure, King was a piece of shit, and I do believe those
	guys were indeed justified in whacking him to get him under control,
	but after he was CLEARLY neutralized, they kept on and on with the
	bludgeoning attacks on his person.  And to make it worse, they were
	basically patted on the back for it.  I think they should all be in
	Folsom, getting butt fucked by every African American in the place
	that would be so inclined (or anyone else for that matter).

	-X
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Friday, 1 Jan 1993 01:02:11 MST
From: Shooting Club at ASU <GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject:    NCCFA

From The American Rifleman, January 1992, p. 6:

Calling all students -- The National Collegiate Coalition for
Firearms Awareness has a new phone number.  To contact the group,
which is working to protect the Second Amendment at colleges and
universities across the country, call (703) 847-2677.  The number
is also that of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America.   The
group's address remains unchanged, 7700 Leesburg Pike, Suite 425,
Falls Church, Va. 22043.

  Has this group got an e-mail I.D. and node yet ?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: reduction of availability
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 19:22:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.003958.4019@nas.nasa.gov> proett@tailspin.nas.nasa.gov (Thomas M. Proett) writes:

>gave statistics about the number of murders done in various countries
>where guns are not generally available and then showed the number for
>the US.  The US had a gigantic number in proportion to the rest.
>
>Doesn't this show some correlation to "more guns" ==> "more murder"?

Correlation does not imply causation.
Correlation does not imply causation.

Look at what you asked.  You didn't ask "doesn't this show that there
is a correlation to high gun ownership to high murder rates".  You
asked "does this correlation imply that more guns is equal to more
murder rates".  The answer to your question is no.  The proof lies in
places such as Switzerland, and Israel where there is a high "more
guns", and a low "more murder".  Back to the mantra

Correlation does not imply causation.
Correlation does not imply causation.

-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Chief of Tranquility  #My Opinions! NotIU's!#Purveyor of
EMT-D         # Base, Lawrence Co. IN # Legalize Explosives!#nontraditional
N9ISY (tech)  # Somewhere out on the  # Politicians prefer  #family values
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over# unarmed peasants.   #Space For Rent
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.drugs
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Here's the problem
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 07:57:39 GMT

In article <1hafmgINNf6p@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
}In article <1992Dec23.065614.12474@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}> }>Is this a joke or have you been residing on Mars or something. The war
}> }>on guns has been going on since before I was born!
}
}> Yes, but has it been declared?
}
}What difference does it make?

See the smiley?  I intended to be humorous.

}> Close, but not quite a declaration, eh:-)?
}
}Since 1950, the US has been involved in four real, MILITARY wars, and not 
}a ONE of them was ever declared.  The people killed in them were no less 
}dead because of it.  Apparently, formal conflict etiquette went out with 
}top hats.

My point was to bring out the irrelevance of declaring wars.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jon@cyclone.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum)
Subject: Re: Toy guns
Originator: jon@cyclone
Organization: The MITRE Corp. McLean Va.
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 22:23:41 GMT


In article <1992Dec23.234710.19234@mcs.anl.gov>, shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
> I agree. I don't think that toy guns are a good idea for children. They
> could be started with pellet pistols (or even water pistols) but they
> should be taught to treat them as real weapons. They can be given
> more powerful weapons as the demonstrate maturity. However I do not
> approve of any regulations against toy guns. A bad idea yes but there
> is no justification for forcing this judgement on others.
> 
> 				mike

I'd better clarify something before this gets out of hand.  I DON'T support
the idea of legislating my feelings about toy guns.  I merely hold the
opinion that they are a bad idea.  I didn't mean to imply that there should
be laws restricting toy guns (or real ones for that matter) in any fashion
whatsoever. 

-- 
<jon@mitre.org>|--24HR Libertarian Party News (900)454-2378 [$1.95 a minute]--
----------------------------------| Libertarian Party            (800)272-1776 
          DON'T BLAME ME!         | 1528 Pennsylvania Avenue SE  (202)543-1988
       I voted Libertarian.       | Washington, DC 20003         (800)682-1776  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Here's the problem
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 19:11:36 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

The following came from talk.politics.drugs but I thought it illustrates
quite starkly what is wrong with the criminal justice system.  Amazing
that is is considered twice as bad to own a chemical as to rob someone
using a weapon.

John
----------------------------------------------------------
drumm@cnsvax.uwec.edu (Danny) writes:

The article is:      "Attack on Deadheads is no hallucination"
                        USA Today, Thursday Dec 17 1992.

Included was a box titled "Comparing times for crimes" (federal)
(no parole is available on any sentence)

CRIME                           MINIMUM MAXIMUM
-----------------------------------------------
LSD possession ($1,500 worth)   10.1    13.9
Attempted murder with harm       6.5     8.1
Rape                             5.8     7.2
Armed robbery (gun)              4.7     5.9
Kidnapping                       4.2     5.2
Theft of $80 million or more     4.2     5.2
Extortion                        2.2     2.7
Burglary (carrying a gun)        2.0     2.5
Taking a bribe                    .5     1.0
Blackmail                         .3      .8

(Source: U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual; DEA)

-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rielly_s@apollo.hp.com (Stephen M. Rielly)
Subject: Boston Globe 12/1792
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 12:18:09 GMT
Distribution: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Intentions?
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 00:58:23 GMT

James Douglas Del-Vecchio writes:
>lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>
>>Another media blitz, initiated by Josh Sugarman, is to increase regulation
>>on gun dealers.  By reducing the number of dealers [e.g., by requiring
>>gun dealer applicants to obtain local law enforcement approval on the
>>application form], competition is lessened, prices go up and the demand
>>for guns goes down.
>
>	There is a whole association for "stocking" FFL holders dedicated
>to just this very goal.   I don't remember the name.  In my opinion, 
>people who try to get government to muscle out their competition for
>them are crawley little worms.

BTW, just who is this Josh Sugarman?

I saw a book that he wrote in a bookstore last year; the book was an
"expose" of the NRA.  Piece of crap, actually...

    don


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030)
Subject: Re: A&E "Killing Culture" - surprise
Organization: BNR Inc. RTP, NC
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 13:02:09 GMT

[ Comments about program deleted ]

 Does anybody know when it's going to be shown again? 
 
	Myron Petro
	NRA, USPSA
        DVC y'all
	**************************************************************************
	 The opinions included in this post are my sole responsibility.
	 And are protected by the First Amendment and guarnteed by the 
	 Second Amendment.   
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns