HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: uk09365@nx13.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: "That embarrassing Second Amendment"
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 03:34:31 GMT
X-Bytes: 

In article <1992Apr2.194443.16169@ms.uky.edu> miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D.  
Grant) writes:
> I would like to know how many people are familiar with an article in the
> 1989 fall edition of the "Yale Law Journal" called: "That embarrassing
> Second Amendment".
> If you haven't read it, do so!
> The article is by Stanford Levinson, and begins on page 637.

You should also read:

"The Second Amendment, Political Liberty, and The Right To  
Self-Preservation" by Nelson Lund in 39 Alabama Law Review 103 (1987).   
Lund is a Harvard Ph.D. and U.Chicago J.D. and former Attorney-Adviser at  
Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Dept. of Justice.

RIK
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jamaass@bluemoon.rn.com (Jeffrey A. Maass)
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 11:07:58 EDT

db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:

> In article <1992Apr2.133214.2390@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaf
> >In article <1992Apr2.015232.12184@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au 
> >> ...  all these whatifs.  ...
> >
> >  My city has a very good Fire Department, and we don't have all that
> >many fires - certainly not enough to keep all those fire fighters
> >busy fighting fires all day long.  What do they do for their normal
> >work shifts?
> >
> >  They spend their time on "whatifs".  They clean and repair their
> >equipment.  They undergo training.  They even train for high-rise
> >fires and Hazmat disasters of the sort which have *never* occurred
> >in this city.  They do inspections.
> >
> >  What a waste of time and effort - being concerned with all these
> >"whatifs".  They shouldn't discuss "whatifs" and certainly shouldn't
> >spend their time and the taxpayers' resources on "whatifs"!  Do I
> >have this right?  
> >
> >--henry schaffer
> >
> >P.S. Or perhaps the Fire Departments in Australia have practices
> >resembling my city Fire Department - and also waste their time
> >on "Henry-type hypotheticals" and "whatifs"?
> 
> Well Henry my old mate, you make a good point. We have fire departments
> to worry about what ifs. We don't expect each citizen to own a fire truck and
> firefighting equipment. In much the same way we have police to worry about
> what ifs on the criminal front.... your analogy does not help your case.
> 


You are not, however, prohibited from owning garden hoses, axes,
or fireproof clothing. And you are not proposing to prohibit your
neighbor from owning these items which may be used for firefighting
(should the need arise).

We don't "expect" everyone to own firearms, but object to being
told that we cannot or should not, for whatever possible (legal) 
use.


Jeff Maass                   Amateur Radio: K8ND (@ W8CQK)
NW of Columbus Ohio                Netmail: jamaass@bluemoon.uucp

GILLETTE'S PRINCIPLE:
  "If you want to make people angry, lie. If you want to make
   them absolutely livid with rage, tell the truth."
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Knox NRA slate
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:43:52 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Apr13.105624.19746@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, bb063@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher J. Crobaugh) writes:
> OH, also, Knox said that some
> congressmen who used to vote with the NRA and then changed, have
> now been calling the NRA looking for appointments, but are 
> meeting with very cool receptions.
> That's GREAT!

Yeah, that'll teach THEM.

I bet they can get appointments with Sarah Brady, though.
So then who gets their message across to them, NRA or HCI?
-- 

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: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Date: 8 Apr 92 12:44:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: NCoast.1992Apr8.124459.4472
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH

As quoted from <1992Apr3.233526.8883@matilda.vut.edu.au> by db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ):

> Well Henry my old mate, you make a good point. We have fire departments
> to worry about what ifs. We don't expect each citizen to own a fire truck and
> firefighting equipment. In much the same way we have police to worry about
> what ifs on the criminal front.... your analogy does not help your case.

And in THIS country, fire departments encourage people to own and maintain 
fire extinguishers.  I suppose that in Australia that's prohibited, and it's
considered better to have one's home burn down rather than usurp the almighty
state's prerogative to fight fires....

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

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Serious Moonlighter)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:31:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: darkstar.32298
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz; Open Access Computing


In article <1992Apr7.090454.10224@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>No. Why do you postulate such a silly thing. But of course all
>things in moderation. No use being a hero and getting burnt. 
>Houses can be rebuilt; people cannot.
And here we are back to your argument about property vs. life. Admittedly,
getting burned in an effort to save mere possessions is stupid (though said
possessions may have cost you a lifetime to gather, may be irreplaceable,
etc.). But what if (oh no, not that phrase again) a child is trapped and
you could have saved her with a fire extinguisher, or prevented her being
trapped in the first place by the warning of a smoke detector?
>>
>OK. Then how come the police are against private gun ownership
>for self-defence. After all firefighters encourage people
>to have preventative equipment.
n general, the rank-and-file police officers are not against the general
populace having guns for self-defense (or for any other non-criminal
pursuits, for that matter.). It's the idiots that make the laws and a few
highly visible police chiefs (such as ex-Chief Joseph McNamara of San Jose,
long may he rot) that are against such a common-sense policy, and wish to
tear out various parts of the Constitution.

Marc Reeve
cmraman@ucscb.ucsc.edu cmraman@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 17:38:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.232219.8647@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>Instead of watching these gun-slinging movies, I suggest you watch
>a few Australian films, in order to see life in its fullest, and
>to get a more balanced perspective on the human experience.

I recommend Mad Max, The Last Wave, Breaker Morant, and Gallipoli.

BTW - Which of these movies had the largest audience in Oz?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian)
Subject: Re: Aussies
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:15:54 GMT

phil_herring@itsus-gw.uow.edu.au (Rev Dr Phil Herring) writes:

>At last! Another chance to be pedantic!

>In article <brian.703050463@coombs> brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) writes:
>>        The amount of "supervision" which most convicts recieved (and please
>> remember in your thesis that most of the immigrants to Australiaafter about
>> 1815 were indeed free settlers, not transported convicts), was the same as
>> the normal immigrant.  The only difference was that a transported settler
>> could not return home - ever.

>Ahem! I might make a wee correction here. In the vast majority of cases,
>convicts were transported for terms of seven years or fourteen years.
>After that period, the convict could go home any time they wanted. The fact
>that about 93% chose to stay perhaps indicates that their tenancy in the
>antipodes was less involuntary than Clyde expects.

	Sorry Phil, you are wrong.  Transportation was for life.  You served
a period of either, as you said, 7 or 14 years and then you were allowed to
go free, but you were _not_ allowed to return to England.  That was implicitly
stated in the sentence.  If you returned and then recaught, it was either
the death sentence or transportation to Van Dieman's land and the real gulag
there.

>Of course, one might make a big deal about the 40,000 convicts transported
>to the colonies in North America, or the vast numbers of slaves... but that
>would be as pointless as Clyde Spencers' (admittedly half-joking) ramblings.

	Why should we bring in things like facts to such an argument?  The
pro-gun people refuse to......


 

--
Brian Ross__________________________________________________________________
	"If it is dangerous to suppose that government is always right, it
will sooner or later be awkward for public administration if most people
suppose that it is always wrong."______________________________J.K.Galbraith
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Date: 10 Apr 92 02:32:44 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr9.132852.27684@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:
>As quoted from <1992Apr7.032757.6227@matilda.vut.edu.au> by db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ):
>
>> >  Is civilian posession of fire extinguishers really restricted
>> >in Australia (including the large red or yellow "assault style"
>> >fire extinguishers?)  If so, then I would agree that my analogy
>> >doesn't help my case - in Australia.
>> 
>> I don't know what's forbidden. I don't go around worrying about
>> my property like you mob seem to. 
>
>Do you HAVE any property?  Do you worry about your life?  Dismissing smoke
>detectors and fire extinguishers would tend to lead people to believe that you
>DON'T place much value on your own life....

Of course I have property, just because I don't worship
it doesn't mean I don't have it!

-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Susan is still only thinking about herself
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:27:34 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <susan.702616753@coombs>, susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
> >Ahhh! You should have said so.  Wasn't aware of where you were.  Odd, your 
> >address comes out on this end as being from Duke University.
> 
> 	Perhaps you need to learn to read node addresses better?

Why start a brawl, Susan?  Why aren't you just running away?

Oh, that's right -- since YOU'RE the bully in this brawl, it's up to THOM
to run away. 
-- 

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: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Salmon (sic) Rushdie's insight into America
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:46:35 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <32303@darkstar.ucsc.edu> cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Serious Moonlighter) writes:
>
>In article <1992Apr7.090047.10104@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>>>Personally, I
>>>think that Salman Rushdie should have to pay for his bodyguards himself.
>>>He's not a government official, after all. Maybe then he'd have second
>>>thoughts on the RKBA and what it means for self-defence.
>>>
>>As you don't even know his views on these matters, don't you
>>think you are being a little presumptuous? 
>No, not really. The original post that started this whole thread was a
>quote from a book of Salman Rushdie's in which he stated comtempt for the
>RKBA as practiced in the United States. Therefore, I feel that I have a
>pretty good idea of what his views are on the subject.

I posted the quote. There was nothing about RKBA in it!

>>Further, I think the
>>Hezbollah are a little more determined than the enemies of an average
>>fishmonger. 
>Perhaps. Organised crime is a form of terrorism too, IMHO, and as they're
>trying to make a profit rather than simply fighting for a "cause" like the
>minions of Hezbollah, they can get pretty damn vicious.
>>Your argument doesn't hold water, and what you write only
>>shows your lack of compassion.
>It holds water better than some of the flimsy vessels you've held up for
>our appreciation, Dave. As for my compassion or lack thereof, I didn't say
>that Salman Rushdie shouldn't have protection, only that he should provide
>for it himself. (of course, he can't in England, as armed bodyguards are

Why should he? 

>only available for government officials except by special assignment by the
>government, as in his case. So the poor English taxpayers foot the bill for
>protecting a millionaire. Piffle.) 

Is he a millionaire???? I doubt it. In any case, millionaires
have rights too.
-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Serious Moonlighter)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Summary: David Bowman strikes out again
Date: 7 Apr 92 00:12:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: darkstar.32211
Organization: Theater Arts Board, UC Santa Cruz


In article <1992Apr3.233526.8883@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>In much the same way we have police to worry about
>what ifs on the criminal front.... your analogy does not help your case.

Hate to shoot down one of your pet theories, Mr. Bowman (no I don't.
"PULL!" <*BLAM*>), but your analogy about the police worrying about
"what-ifs" on the criminal front holds about as much water as a burst
balloon. The police probably don't sit around thinking "what if David
Bowman's house gets burglarised? What shall we do?" Rather, you should be
thinking "what if someone breaks into my house while I am at home, and I am
unable to get police assistance? what if said intruder is armed and
threatens me with bodily harm if I don't submit to his demands? what if the
criminal, having ransacked my house, abused my loved ones, and generally
made a nuisance of himself, says he is going to kill me to prevent my
describing him to the police and potentially identifying him if he is
caught?" This sort of situation is where having some form of self-defense
weaponry, preferably one with a greater range than arm's length, becomes
quite desirable, and I for one plan to invest in such weaponry as soon as I
move off campus (firearms are not allowed on campus because theoretically,
as we live in buildings which are patrolled at night by police officers and
have all entrances locked after 7 p.m., we don't need firearms for
protection. Just last quarter, there were five burglaries in my building
alone, and several assaults and one rape on-campus. I feel safe. :).
>-- 
>   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
>    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
>    was swatting at flies.

And while you preach tolerance for one's fellow man, your signature seems
quite contradictory.

Marc Reeve
cmraman@ucscb.ucsc.edu cmraman@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian)
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date:  7 Apr 92 01:03:53 GMT

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>In article <1992Apr3.232219.8647@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>>Instead of watching these gun-slinging movies, I suggest you watch
>>a few Australian films, in order to see life in its fullest, and
>>to get a more balanced perspective on the human experience.

>I recommend Mad Max, The Last Wave, Breaker Morant, and Gallipoli.

>BTW - Which of these movies had the largest audience in Oz?

	From the largest to the least, Gallipoli, Breaker Morant, Mad Max
and The Last Wave.


--
Brian Ross__________________________________________________________________
	"If it is dangerous to suppose that government is always right, it
will sooner or later be awkward for public administration if most people
suppose that it is always wrong."______________________________J.K.Galbraith
From: george@cs.purdue.EDU (Michael J. George)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Manhood, talking tough, posting in t.p.g., life, universe and
Date: 7 Apr 92 04:06:23 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University

In article <susan.702534881@coombs>, susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
> 
> 	I've never claimed that "running away" is ALWAYS an option.
> Just that it is an option which is all too often ignored in this news
> group.  All too often its a case of someone "picking a fight" with someone
> else and that person (who's usually T(w)ermie) saying they'd use their gun
> to defend themselves.  I wonder why they have to stand there in the first
> place when it would be so much easier to withdraw before the situation
> got out of hand?

I suppose one reason that I would fail to mention it is that I would feel any
rational person *would* try to avoid having the conflict degenerate to the
point of having to use deadly force.  I also think that when there is the use
of deadly force, the case is usually scruitinized very closely.  As a result
of that, I am *very* careful to find any other way out.  It's also ben mentioned
here before that in general (in the US), ppl. with concealed carry permits are
exptected to be more responsible (legally) than the unarmed person.

> 	As for your example, it is indeed a relavent example for a different
> situation.  I wonder though, just how useful a gun is in such a situation?
> Are you proposing that wymmin should shoot their husbands?  Don't you find
> it interesting that the majority of victims in Australia who are killed with
> guns are in fact wives?

If a woman (why do you misspell it?  I'm afraid I've never seen this done
before (sheltered me...) ) is being assaulted to this point, then she *is*
justified in shooting him.

> 	I think rather that you have made an excellent case for why NOBODY
> should be allowed a gun Geoff.  We are all subject to our emotions and unable
> to think clearly under stress.  Hence guns should be barred from everybody
> in that case.

You can also become subject to your emotions and attack me with a knife and 
try to kill me.  Hence knives should be barred from everybody.

I'm sorry but your logic doesn't hold.  by that logic, we can bar almost every-
thing from everybody.

> 	Indeed it is.  However, its the reverse here.  As I said above,
> the majority of victims of gun homocides are wymmin in Australia Geoff.
							     ^^^^^^-what's wrong with "women"
> They are the victims of these "equalisers", not the men, which is one
> reason why so many feminists in Australia are in favour of gun control
> as they see it as one more way in which the security of wymmin can be
> assurred.

How about if the women are allowed access to their own guns?  Then the gun would
be the equalizer.  If they are really feminists, then they should want equality
for women, so rather than forbid men from having guns (restricting men's rights)
they should fight to allow women to have them (expand the women's rights).
-- 
Michael George
george@cs.purdue.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: wayne john warf <wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 10:31:29 -0500

In article <1992Apr10.023732.9198@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.133601.27927@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:
>>As quoted from <1992Apr7.090454.10224@matilda.vut.edu.au> by db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman



>>Most of the INDIVIDUAL officers that I've known WEREN'T.  Chiefs are in 
>>POLITICAL posts who must follow the POLITICAL dictates of their superiors.
>
>OK. So your police system has its problems. I am talking about Australia,
>where I am  getting gladder I live in, by the minute. This group
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^            
>is convincing me that there is something seriously wrong with
>the American system.

So are we, believe me, so are we. 
-- 
 *  WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu**I speak for me,OK?**sic semper tyrannis    *
 *   NRA LIFE* *NRA Certified Instructor* *Penna. R&PA* *Ind. SR&PA   *
 * Department of Decision & Information Systems, Indiana University   *
 * Bloomington, IN 47405 USA* *Pennsylvania CCW Lic.*Indiana CCW Lic. *
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: NRA billboards
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:12:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T


|My family's farm has a few billboards along I-65 between Indy and Chicago.

|I've spent a few hours thinking of catchy signs I could make.  (Can't
|recall most of them.)  Now if I could just make that huge color ink-jet
|printer...

|Give up your gun, just use 9-1-1 [picture of woman being raped, phone off-hook]

How about a picture of a Colt .45 M1911 with the caption:

		The M1911 Doesn't Need to call 9-1-1
		
				or
				
			Use 1-9-1-1 not 9-1-1
		
				or
				
A picture from a Nazi Death Camp with the caption "Death" and a picture
of a Colt AR-15 with the caption "Life." Directly under both would be
the caption: "Vote Pro-Choice, Vote Self-Defense."
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Watch out for this!
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:14:50 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <8110242@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, ron@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ron Miller) writes:
> Here is the relevent text: (From the Virginia Declaration of Rights;
> June 12, 1776)
> 
> Article 13: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the 
> people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of
> a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided,
> as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be
> under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
> =====================
> 
> Here is the Federal 2nd Amendment: (December 15, 1791)
> 
> Article II: 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.
> ======================

I've seen this argument a zillion times, but I've never considered it
worth using.  Why?  Because all it shows is what was on MADISON'S mind at
the time.  Presumably, Madison proposed this text verbatim for inclusion.
But it was NOT ACCEPTED by the other delegates.  Why?  What arguments did
they make against the specific wording?  The point is that the delegates
watered down some very specific language to some very general language,
and nobody has explained 1) why they felt it necessary; 2) whether there
were solid philosophical disagreements from the rest of the delegates to 
some of the concepts expressed in the original version.
-- 

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