HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: AARP Stance on Gun Control
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 02:29:01 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <1992Jul30.163556.19163@newsgate.sps.mot.com> rigg@atlantis.sps.mot.com writes:
>
>Those of you who are members of, or know members of the American Association
>of Retired Persons (AARP) may be interested to here what a writer to the
>editor of the American Rifleman (a magazine published by the NRA) had to say:
>
>"... the AARP has joined the anti-gun brigade, adopting a policy calling on the
>federal government to increase controls on the availability of 'handguns and
>semi-automatic and automatic weapons.'"
>
>It goes on:
>
>"After adopting the policy, they cooked up a survey purportedly showing the
>members approved it."
>
>My mother has been a member of AARP for several years, and a member of the NRA
>for much longer.  She was surprised to hear about this, especially considering
>that the AARP **NEVER** sent her a survey or asked her for an opinion on the 
>issue.
>
>Members of the AARP may wish to write to the organizations president at:
>
>Robert Maxwell, president AARP
>1090 K St., N.W.
>Washington, D.C. 20049

That will be hard for many of them, like my grandfather.  AARP doesn't
seem to drop dead people from their membership roles, even when mailed
a copy of the death certificate.
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: Bush and his Crime Bill
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 01:45:19 GMT

In article <3750@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> dcwst8+@pitt.edu (David C Winters) writes:

>In article <1992Jul24.232009.22133@iitmax.iit.edu> draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn) writes:
>>If Bush is willing to trade away our gun rights for a broader death
>>penalty and a weaker exclusionary rule, I'd certainly be willing to
>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^
>Would someone mind doing me the favor of posting an explanation of what
>the "exclusionary rule" is, what it does, and the reasons for and
>against weakening it?

     The exclusionary rule is the legal set-up where evidence that was
gained illegally (through a co-erced confesion, illegal search, etc.)
is not admitted into court.

     If, say, a police officer drops by and searches your home without
a search warrant, any evidence found is likely to be thrown out of court,
because it was obtained illegally.

     The exclusionary rule is the "teeth" of the fourth amendment.  Since
there are no specific penalties for violating fourth amendment rights (and
there probably should be) then the only way to enforce them is the make sure
the police know they have to play by the rules if they want a conviction.

     Bush wants to weaken the exclusionary rule in "good faith" cases.  That 
is, in those cases where the officer can claim he thought he had a valid
warrant or a good reason to search when in fact he did not.

     Many people feel, considering the all-to-often examples these days of
police abusing their power (of which the Rodney King thing was only the most
visible example) that *any* lee-way is *too* much lee-way.

>Thanks so muchly,


>David Winters  
>dcwst8@unix.cis.pitt.edu OR winters@vms.cis.pitt.edu

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Without a Clue...
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:06:36 GMT

In <1992Jul24.143417.12756@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:


>Letter in the July 22, 1992 Daily Herald:

>PHONES INSTEAD OF GUNS

>I read with interest this morning, the front page article about
>suburban women buying guns. Wouldn't it be much better and cheaper
>to buy a cordless phone? It's so easy to dial 911, and safer than
>using a gun. Using a gun, you have to have a good aim, and there is
>a good chance of missing your target, not to mention the ill feeling
>of having a gun in the house. No need to worry about the gun going
>off accidentally.

We just had a case here in D.C where the woman was raped, called 911
after the fact (I think you can fire a gun faster than dialing 911),
and got hung-uo on three time because she only spoke Spanish. I
don't think that even with the fastest response time, 911 is going
to prevent rape.

>Keep the cordless phone in which ever room you are in. What good is a
>gun in the night stand in the bedroom if you are in the kitchen? A
>dispatcher will come to your house when you dial 911 even if you
>don't say a word over the phone. Just make sure the batteries on
>your phone are always charged.

>Elsie Link
>Rolling Meadows

REB

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods and rights
To: smj@iti.org
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:14:43 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.153445.1766@iti.org> smj@iti.org (Seth Johnson) writes:
>Only Californians who purchase handguns LEGALLY are required to
>purchase them IN California.  Most criminals purchase their
>handguns on the street.  These weapons come from a number of
>sources.  Some are stolen from California gun shops, and others
>are (get ready for a shock here) purchased by illegal distributors
>in OTHER STATES!!!

However, if CA's laws had some effect, it should be observable in CA,
even if that effect is reduced by "leakage".  (BTW - CA also supplies
Nevada's "crime guns", for much the same reasons that it supplies
Nevada's criminals.)  That effect isn't noticable.

BTW - Those "illegal distributors" are breaking federal law.  Maybe
federal law isn't as effective as promised.

>It will be impossible to control the violence on
>our streets until the rules governing the sale of handguns are the
>same in all 50 states and the District of Columbia (where handguns
>are easy to buy right across the border in Maryland and Virginia).
>D.C. has a handgun ban, but it only takes a fifteen minute drive
>and a cooperative Maryland resident to get a handgun with no
>waiting.

Such sales are already illegal, so it is unreasonable to think
that making them more illegal will stop them.

In other words, precisely what law will stop a willing-to-break-
the-law seller from selling?

I recommend looking at Canada and Mexico to see the effect of national
laws.  Neither has worked (reduced murder); why will the US be any
different?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Docs versus riflemen
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:07:16 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Jul21.051052.18543@trl.oz.au>, djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:
> But the 2nd got extended from a 'security of a free State' to the security
> of an individual (Don't tell me the individual IS the state, we'll agree to
> disagree). The RIGHT! of the individual to do what he wants and to use his
> firearm to back it up. If what the individual wants is out of line with the
> majority and the laws then he is called a 'criminal'. 

Once I thought you were willing to listen honestly, but no more.  Now you
pervert the "right of a person to own and carry arms" into the "right of 
a person to do what he wants and use his firearm to back it up."  What
utter nonsense.

You're about two days away from a PLONK!
-- 

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: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Foreign Interest in the US RKBA (was ACLU & 2nd)
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:48:19 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Jul21.042439.16881@trl.oz.au>, djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:
> >> So what, politically, is happening to get the government back under the 
> >> control of the constitution?
> >
> >We vote, pal.  What, you say it isn't working?  But you're the guy who
> >thinks that votes can solve everything.
> 
> What percentage of eligible people actually vote in US elections? Here it is
> about 98%, thus the majority gets what the majority chooses. If less than 50%
> of voters actually vote then the majority of people still may not have their
> choice.

Who gives a damn about the people who didn't vote?  Their vote didn't make
a difference either way.  Only the people who vote get to decide the outcome.
Your assumption is that 1) all the people who didn't vote might have voted
the other way, and that 2) if the election had come out the other way it
would have made a damn bit of difference in salvaging the constitution in any 
case.  In point of fact, in this country, you can choose between two parties
who each want to bowdlerize the Constitution -- just different parts of it.
-- 

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: paull@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (Robert Paull)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Attorney General Barr Announces Violent Crime Report
Date: 30 Jul 92 18:23:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories Palo Alto,CA

: [originally posted in misc.activism.progressive by Nigel Allen]
: 
: [Note that FREE copies of the Report are available, as explained at the
: bottom of the posting - get one, (or ten), as a lot of interest will keep
: them publicly honest.]
: 
: [We'll need to keep an eye on this, as at least one rabid anti-gunner,
: Robert Del Tufo, AG of NJ, was on the stage.]
: 
: Press release from U.S. Department of Justice
: 
:  Attorney General Barr Announces Violent Crime Report 
:  To: National Desk 
:  Contact: U.S. Department of Justice, Public Affairs, 202-514-2007 
:  
:    WASHINGTON, July 28 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Attorney General William P. 
: Barr today released a blueprint for fighting violent crime at the 
: state and local level in a report titled "Combating Violent Crime: 
: 24 Recommendations to Strengthen Criminal Justice." 
:    The report highlights the success of tough law enforcement and the 
: need for continued legal reform. 

... stuff deleted.....

: America.  But in too many cases, their state criminal justice system 
: is letting them down.  The sad truth is that most convicted violent 
: criminals are returning to the streets after alarmingly short periods 
: of time in prison.  We must stop the revolving door justice that is 
: undermining the good work of the men and women on the front lines of 
: the war on crime and drugs," said the attorney general. 
  

  Doesn't this sound JUST like the NRAs' OPERATION CRIME STRIKE?

Gee, how creative of the gummint to think this up.  :-\
--------
RP
From: msn@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Mike 'HK G3ZF Full-Auto' Newsome)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: for your reading enjoyment pt 1
Date: 24 Jul 92 18:17:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

For ya'lls reading pleasure...

	ALLIGATOR Tue. 07-21-92 front page.

	"It's like carrying a loaded gun in your pocket," Lombardi
	said.  "You think you're protected and what you end up doing
	is shooting your friend"

				John Lombardi
				UF President


			Dooka yoroshiku onegaishimasu,
        ________                                    __  __  ______
       /  ____//__      msn@reef.cis.ufl.edu       / / / / / ____/
         /  //  //      Michael S. Newsome        / / / / / /__
          GUNDAM        3632 NW 46th Pl.         / / / / / ___/
        //  //          Gainesville, Fl.        / /_/ / / /
      //__//___/        32605-1046.            /_____/ /_/
        //______/       U.S.A.            The University of Florida
                                                  Alumnus

          Watashino hatano motoni watashiwa jiyuuni ikiru
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Without a Clue...
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:34:17 GMT


Letter in the July 22, 1992 Daily Herald:

PHONES INSTEAD OF GUNS

I read with interest this morning, the front page article about
suburban women buying guns. Wouldn't it be much better and cheaper
to buy a cordless phone? It's so easy to dial 911, and safer than
using a gun. Using a gun, you have to have a good aim, and there is
a good chance of missing your target, not to mention the ill feeling
of having a gun in the house. No need to worry about the gun going
off accidentally.

Keep the cordless phone in which ever room you are in. What good is a
gun in the night stand in the bedroom if you are in the kitchen? A
dispatcher will come to your house when you dial 911 even if you
don't say a word over the phone. Just make sure the batteries on
your phone are always charged.

Elsie Link
Rolling Meadows

Send letters to:

Fence Post
P.O. Box 280
Arlington Heights, IL 60006

======

When you realize that this is the voicing of large numbers of
households in the U.S. without firearms, one comes to the conclusion
that little sense of reality prevails in numberous households...
From: rrw@philabs.philips.com (Roger White)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Virginia Firearms Investigative Unit
Date: 23 Jul 92 13:14:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Philips Laboratories, Briarcliff Manor, NY.

In article <5025@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.190526.5236@SSD.intel.com>, hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
>> |> >The check is not being fooled or failing.  The check is only valid if
>> |> >you provide legitimate ID AND have no criminal record.  A strawman who's
>> |> >clean can buy guns under the check all day long and tote them across the 
>> |> >boarder.  
>> |> As soon as one of the guns used in a crime and traced back to VA comes up
>> |> with his ID as the purchaser and end of trace, then he is no longer clean,
>> |> until (and if) his case is resolved.
>
>What I hear then is:
>
>> Tracing a firearm back to the purchaser proves nothing, except that he 
>> performed the last "on the books" transaction.
>
>1) Instant "Staggers"-type checks are easily defeated through multiple
>   strawmen.

Any background check can be defeated by strawmen.  Why do you think strawman
purchases are illegal?

>
>> You have to prove that he performed a strawman transaction, which is 
>> generally a neat trick, as two or three "off the books" transactions may
>> have occurred between the original purchaser and the person who used it
>> criminally.
>
>2) Waiting periods may not stop the illegal flow of firearms across state
>   borders, but might be effective at slowing it down.  But only if applied
>   to every purchase of a gun (which is how it is usually proposed anyway).
>

More nonsense.  Waiting periods like the Brady Bill, with no background check,
will only delay the illegal flow for the length of time equal to tha waiting
period.  They are nothing but a waste of time and an inconvienvce for legal
purchasers.  And we all know by now that the "heat of the moment" arguments
don't hold water.

>> All the trace accomplishes is to tie up some finite amount of police 
>> resources that could be put to better use.
>
>3) Criminals have an easy way to obtain firearms from legitimate dealers,
>   but it's not worth doing anything about.
>

Of course something should be done about it but the question is what, I guess.

>> Another instance of a government "prohibition created crime" making money 
>> for the lawless.
>
>4) In fact, we should just let them buy directly.
 
I guess you're the only one saying that.

>
>I can't believe I'm hearing this.
>-- 

You're not, you're inventing it.

>
>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...

Rog
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Keywords: Impulse abortions, RU-486, and waiting periods 
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 15:35:25 GMT

In article <3696@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>I wish that the people who think that a RKBA argument is 
>appropriate to talk.abortion would try to keep in mind
>that having an abortion and buying a gun are two very
>different events.

True, but they are similar in that they involve an exercise of
a right.  In one case the right to privacy and the other case
the RKBA.

>Some fool claimed that there was an analogy to be made
>between waiting periods for gun purchase and waiting
>periods for abortions.  Others have cited "impulse

A waiting period infringes on a right, whether that right
is speech, abortion, or gun purchases.  Surely you see the
similarity.

>This is, as I tried to point out in short form above, absurd.
>
Then you see no connection between waiting periods for
free speech and waiting periods for abortions?

>wanted to have an abortion, and go have one.  Abortions are
>performed in clinics, not stores.  It would be necessary to
>make an appointment first.  No clinic in Pittsburgh performs
>abortions more than three days a week, all the gun shops that
>I am aware of are open for business at least six days a week.
>There is no such thing as an "impulse abortion."

Care you to address the earlier statement that 80% of FFLs
operate out of their basements, have no set retail hours, and
sell firearms only by appointment?  Secondly, it seems that
with the advent of RU-486 the possibility exists that an
entire undergound supply may develop to provide abortions
in those places where the pro-lifers have managed to shut
down clinics.  Obviously, any woman acquiring RU-486 via
underground connections would not need to wait for any appointment
and could begin the abortion process immediately (I realize
that this example would pose health risks, but it is entirely
plausible).  So, in sum, waiting periods infringe on rights
REGARDLESS of what right is being disussed, and technology
is making "impulse" abortions more feasible every day.
As a final note, I'm not sure I buy your premise anyway.
What if a woman who wanted an abortion called a clinic
"for an appointment" that same day?  "Yes, that will be fine
Mrs. Jones.  We have an opening in the appointment book for
2:00.  See you in a little bit.  Bye now."

Drew
--
drew betz : wj8k : dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu   
"Our campaign is the opposite of 'competence.'"
- Clinton aide Eli Segal, quoted in the 7/22/92 _Wall Street Journal_ 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Washington State gun buy-back
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 04:39:52 GMT

 alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:

>kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack) writes:
>>
>>	I guess this buy-back means WA doesn't have a waiting period. 
>>   Well, that is a good sign at least.

>Unfortunately not correct.  Washington state has a five-day waiting
>period, which is waived for anyone who has a concealed weapons
>permit.

	So who is the person with the permit and why hasn't this sort of
hypocracy been broadcast to the public?  If there is no permit holder
buying the weapon, is it illegal?  Some pressure on the DA, with suitable
publicity if this is the case, could be quite beneficial.

<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,alt.individualism
From: bobd@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula)
Subject: Re: A Waiting Period for Free Speech
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 12:48:24 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.175607.25822@linus.mitre.org> m15133@mwvm.mitre.org (Graham K. Glover) writes:
>
>Maybe publishers should be licenced.  Radio and television stations are.  
>The users (DJs, announcers, etc.) also require licences.  (Perhaps we need 
>permits to carry concealed pens.)
>

Imagine the FBI staking out restroom stalls to make sure that no
malcontents wrote on the stall wall without a permit? :0)

Not to mention "drive by" writings on concrete walls with spray
paint........
-- 
==========================================================================
              Disclaimer: These are my views, not the U's

        "If it's in the paper it must be true!" --- D. Doright 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: stedee@auto-trol.com (Steve Deemer)
Subject: Re: Washington State gun buy-back
Organization: Auto-trol Technology Corporation
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:24:05 GMT

In article <archer.141@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.215727.11458@microsoft.com> alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:
>
>>A gun buy-back program is being planned for the Seattle area.  It
>>is sponsored privately by an organization called "Stop the Violence",
>>which intends to collect $100,000 in private donations to buy back
>>guns at $50 each during the month of September.
>
>Good.  Now, everybody anywhere NEAR the Seattle area, grab hold of every non-
>functional piece of junk you can find and sell it back to them to soak up 
>their funds.  But lock up your own hardware.  These sorts of buy backs tend 
>to encourage burglary as people try and steal guns to turn in, since they 
>have full amnesty.
>-=-=-

Never heard of people -stealing- guns for buyback programs, but last
time they tried this in Denver, the buyback people paid $100 apiece for
squirt guns and cap pistols, as well as for actual firearms that
retailed for $30-$40 new.

Steve Deemer

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: Call off the dogs. was Re:Waiting periods for guns and domestic violenc
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:01:58 GMT


In <1992Jul29.043505.13207@convex.com> Mike Tighe states:

|As far as I know, the select-fire version of the AK-47, the AKM, or the
|AK-74, has never been legally imported into the United States. A few have
|been smuggled in, a few came in for evaluation by the US goverment. But as
|far as I know none have been available legally to civilians.

|If I am in error, please tell me the name of the importer of this weapon,
|and from what country they were importing it, since it was/is manufactured
|in several countries.

The select-fire AK-47 was imported into this country for sale to us
civilian-scum before 1968. Interarms would probably have been an importer.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 was used to block the import of full-auto
weapons into this country under the premise that they were not for
sporting use. 

From 1968 to 1986(?), all the new full-autos offered for sale to civilian-
scum were "manufactured" here in the USA, either from scratch or via the
conversion of semi-autos.
------
"The future is now - you did stock up on assault weapons and ammo, yes?"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton