HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Keywords: I'm not laughing
Date: 22 Aug 92 06:20:24 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


George writes:
What gun-owners need to do, in my opinion, is rather than offer these
tired
and paranoid sounding arguments (the only valid one is self-defense)
is to
stop confronting the people who oppose gun ownership, start
recognizing that
there are some pretty serious concerns that need to be addressed, and
get
every one working together to find a solution amenable to everyone.
 
The same suggestion goes to the other half of the arguers.
 
I reply:
I'd really like to meet some of the ban fans halfway.  The problem is
they don't.  All they want to do is disarm everyone except those who
are being paid to protect them.  Take a look at Senator Kennedy's
attitude, for example.

Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-P  LPVa NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E"
Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia
Send e-mail for an application and more information
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nominee for SCUMBAG of the year: Rep Frank Wolf (Va 10th Dist)
             (He just signed as a co-sponsor of HR 438)
Grand Prize: One free Bastinado session and a trip to the unemployment
             office, given by yours truly
-- 
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: brownfield!jbrow (Jim Brownfield)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Reply-To: <jbrow@glv.com>
Organization: Encompass
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 23:07:49 GMT

In article <183142@pyramid.pyramid.com> glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert)  
writes:
> In article <1992Aug18.194045.16957@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles  
Scripter) writes:
> >In article <92231.032653MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>, Norman St. John Polevaulter
> ><MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

[stuff deleted]

> >> If you really take this "we have to be ready to fight off a military
> >> takeover" argument seriously you have to argue for private posession of
> >> everything up to and including fully armed jet fighters. Are you?
> >
> >Sure, why not?  Is there any reason law-abiding citizens should not be
> >allowed to own such weapons?
> >
> Hey, why stop there?  I'm not going to feel secure about a government
> takeover by the military until I and every durn gun owner has 30 megatons
> of H-bomb power to stop them damn pesky coups of the US Government.
> 
> George Lambert
> 

Laws do not stop the ownership of any weapon.  Generally, the economics  
involved determine the level of weapon a citizen can own (legally or  
illegally).  It would be very expensive to own and operate a fighter jet or a  
nuclear weapon (governments extort large amounts of money from their citizens  
to own such weapons).  The same is true for rocket launchers, tanks, etc.  If,  
some day, making nuclear weapons becomes very inexpensive, regular people  
probably will own them.  I only hope there is a good, inexpensive, way to  
defend against them at that time.
From: gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Date: 13 Aug 92 04:55:21 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In <cthong.713669756@sfu.ca> cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes:
[ poorly written stuff deleted ]
>the cops meanwhile are only a 20 second phone call away.
[ more poorly written stuff deleted ]

Well the semantic content here is pretty low. Do you mean that you can
complete a phone call to the police in 20 seconds? I assume you have a
pocket cellular? Pretty pricey aren't they?

The only other way I can interpret this is that you can call and
receive help within 20 seconds instead of the more usual half-hour.
If your phone does that, well I've *got* to have one of those.
Of course I suppose they could deputize you via recording.

"Press (1) to receive automatic deputization"
"Press (2) to receive recorded, generic Last Rites"
"Press (0) to be placed in waiting queue for human operator."

(User presses 1)
"A squad car will be dispatched when one is free. In the meantime,
your are hereby appointed as a deputy and will be allowed to purchase
a weapon after a 15-day wait. While help is being routed to your area,
please enjoy the soothing sounds of Barry Manilow. Do not hang up"

-- 
The War on Drugs is just part of the War on the US Constitution.
From: swatt%mickey@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:25:40 GMT
Organization: Yale University, Computing & Information Systems
Originator: swatt@mickey.CS.Yale.Edu


Remember, the job of the Grand Jury was to determine whether a violation
of criminal law has been committed by the individual deputy in question.
They were not empowered to determine whether the SWAT team's procedure
or tactics were appropriate or reasonable.  The individual deputy entered
the house armed (1) in compliance with orders from his lawfully-appointed
superiors, and (2) [presumably] in accordance with tactical doctrines and
regulations governing the unit at the time.

The Grand Jury decision in no way excuses the department from civil
liability, although the state probably has one of those "soverignty"
clauses in its consitution which says "you can't sue us unless we deign
to accept it".  Civil awards won't bring anyone back from the grave
of course, but neither will criminal convictions.

It is really the governing authority of the SWAT unit which needs to be
disciplined here.  A police force which sends armed units into an
expected deadly encounter solely on the basis of a telephone tip from
an anonymous or in any way questionable informant is grossly neglegent.
A large civil liability award is a good way to get their attention on
that point.

Much as I hate to enrich personal injury lawers, there are times when
they are decidedly the lesser of two evils.  This sure sounds like one
such time.
-- 
  Alan S. Watt
  Yale University			Computing and Information Systems
  Box 2112 Yale Station			(203) 432-6602
  New Haven, CT  06520-2112		Watt-Alan@Yale.Edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:19313 alt.flame:12082
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.flame
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 14 Aug 92 23:40:50 GMT
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <1992Aug13.220118.14275@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>
> [...]
>
>ps - My use of last names is neither inappropriate nor hostile.

Your continued use of Mr. Ezekiel's last name, in the manner he himself has 
characterized as "rude", is both inappropriate AND hostile.

								- Kevin 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 2 (was Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 23:16:23 GMT

In article <BtC319.AA4@newcastle.ac.uk>, J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk
(Jonathan Spencer) writes:

> Do you believe that "well trained" means "incapable of error"? It says
> he shot the wrong person. That's all, he made a mistake.

Oops. sorry Ms. Pratt...  Some mistakes are worse than others.

There are a few points to consider here.  If he was trying to stop
this person, why did he shoot to the neck?  A shot to the chest is
easier, and quite reliable.  Failure to take the obvious target seems
to indicate that he didn't have his weapon under control.  If he *did*
have his weapon under control, then it is apparent that he intended
to kill Ms. Pratt (head/neck shots are hard to justify in self defense).

> >> BTW, the mp5 is a three shot burst assault rifle, not a true machine
> >> gun.
> 
> >OK, so either Tony's weapon misfired (only one, fatal, shot), or Tony
> >couldn't hold on target, as the MP5 fires 3 shot bursts.
> 
> or you've misunderstood.

Not really...  It wasn't clear if Tony had fired 1 shot, which was fatal,
or 1 fatal shot (= 1 shot on target, 2 more elsewhere).

> >Since Tony's MP5 (assuming it functioned properly) fired 3 rounds, and only
> >one hit target, the other 2 shots must have been wild.  This seems like
> >it show a disregard  for the safety of the children in the room.  This
> >is why I asked whether a semi-auto carbine might be better.
> 
> More misunderstanding on your part. He meant it can be set to fire
> bursts of 3, not that that is it's *only* mode. He meant that it could
> *not* be set to full auto.

But, if the MP5 is 3 shot burst assault weapon, then it must have it
selector switch set to "3 shot burst".  Otherwise it's merely a 
semi-auto weapon.  It was not clear where the selector was set.

What I was trying to point out, is that there insufficient evidence
for anyone here to determine the facts.  If the evidence presented is
*all* that those who reviewed this case had, this case should be forwarded
to the Grand Jury.  What has been presented seems incomplete, and warrants
further investigation.

-- 
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
From: dont@execu.execu.com (Don Thompson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Policing Ourselves
Date: 21 Aug 92 15:38:44 GMT
Organization: Austin Dev. Center, Comshare Inc.


#So, let's have a voluntary safety program, and encourage kids to attend.
#Let's make it part of the High school curriculum...  Instructors are
#probably easy to find.  We could most likely get some NRA instructors
#to volunteer.  :-)
cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) wrote...

Dillion Precision contributes a percentage of every sale to the ILA.
How about a variation on that. What if dealers gave a discount to all those
showing a certificate indicating that they have gone through kind of 
safety training? Courses could be certified by the NRA or other credible
organization and be provide by local clubs, or even the dealer themselves.
Pass the course, get a discount. Money is a great motivator. Maybe the NRA
could set aside some funds to help offset this somewhat.

Later, perhaps the dealers could give these individuals a higher priority
than others when it comes to hard to obtain items. Eventually, we may
get to the point where the SCUBA industry is, where for the most part
it's dificult to buy gear and services without showing your certificate.

Sara Brady would probably have a seizure when she found out that one
of her trumphed up reasons for her Nazi HCI and its legislation is 
moot.

-- 
________________________________________________________________________________
Don Thompson                        |   I may be opinionated, but at least
Comshare Inc. dont@execu.execu.com  |   my opinions are my own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: swatt%mickey@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Originator: swatt@mickey.CS.Yale.Edu
Organization: Yale University, Computing & Information Systems
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:51:49 GMT


The article said:

>Larry Pratt is seeking $40 million from the county and Lynnwood, a
>Seattle suburb.  His 6-year-old daughter, Tanya, is asking $10 million
>from them; his niece, 5-year-old Jessica Craig, seeks $10 million. 
>Robin Pratt's parents are seeking $10 million from the county and
>Lynnwood.

I realize this is a relative nit, but this kind of nonesense appears
so often in news reports.  Tanya and Jessica most certainly
are *NOT* asking for $10 million apiece.  If they're asking for anything
at all, they're probably asking when Mommy/Aunt Robin will come back.

The *attorney* is asking for $10 million apiece.  The correct phrase
in the report would read "the suit seeks $10 million apiece on behalf
of daughter Tanya and niece Jessica."

I have sort of mixed feelings about this suit.  On the one hand, I feel
civil awards have gotten way out of hand recently.  On the other hand,
the behavior of the authorities is clearly intolerable and a big-bucks
civil suit is about the best corrective medicine available.

It may be a judgment of this size is required to cause the proper heads
to roll, but somehow I don't think it is proper to award that kind of
money to the family.  I'm *real* sure it isn't proper to award 30% of
that sum to the attorney.  I would prefer to see reasonable compensatory
damages paid to the family, and appropriately stiff punitive damages
paid toward some worthwhile activity which will genuinely improve the
situation so a repeat is less likely.  Problem is, it's kind of hard
to think of what that "worthwhile activity" might be without, in effect,
paying it back to the state.

I have an idea!!!  How about using it to fund a gun buy-back program from
SWAT teams nation-wide!!  Get those MP-5s out of dangerous hands!
-- 
  Alan S. Watt
  Yale University			Computing and Information Systems
  Box 2112 Yale Station			(203) 432-6602
  New Haven, CT  06520-2112		Watt-Alan@Yale.Edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: Twilight Zone
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:34:28 GMT

In article <3154@isgtec.isgtec.com> robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne) writes:
>viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>> 	This I did not reference in my previous post, and I feel I need
>> to explain myself.  I think the police and the military have similar roles
>> outside of full-blown wars of conquest.  Both are military organizations,
>> and follow a chain of command that insulates the lowest, but puts the
>> responsibility on the highest.  Both are involved in actions against
>> what are hostile enemies.
>
>You are missing a critical difference Dan:
>
>Soldiers deal with the enemy.
>Police officers deal with SUSPECTS.
	
	Essential point!
>
>Soldiers kill or disable the enemy as quickly and as efficiently as
>they can.  Soldiers can assume anybody in a enemy emplacement is,
>in fact, an enemy.
>
>Police arrest suspects for trial and defend themselves if the suspects
>prove dangerous.  

	And let us not forget that the danger must be clear and immediate.

>Police officers don't get to assume anybody is
>dangerous,  that must be proved by the suspect.  Police officers can't
>assume everybody in a residence is a suspect.  Since an unarmed women
>gathering up children presents no immediate danger the officer should
>go to jail for a long time.

	You said it.

	Some of the things Dan said were pretty amazing.  I think if Dan-O
	were to become the victim of one of these "accidental" shootings,
	I suspect he might feel just a *wee* bit differently.

	-Andy V.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals
From: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak)
Subject: Police Review Boards
Originator: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:08:12 GMT


 For the past several years now, people in Denver have been trying
 to establish a Citizen Review Board to handle complaints against
 the police. The police and Denver government have been resisting
 this. Only now does it look like it may finally happen. The police
 have used arguments such as, "we are the only ones qualified to
 investigate the police". Maybe so, but an appointed panel of
 hopefully educated citizens should be capable of analyzing the
 results of that investigation, and making a determination.
 I just find it interesting that the police think that they are
 above normal standards. If I was accused of a crime, they wouldn't
 let my family run the investigation and determine the results.

 Why should the police be able to have their family, "brothers
 & sisters in blue" investigate them. On the flip-side, it seems
 like the police would also benefit from a review board. I would
 make it harder for a "Banana" Joe McNammara type to persecute his
 officers and kick them out on trumped up charges.

                                Bill Vojak
                                Bill_Vojak@stortek.com
                                NRA, ILA, CFC

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER NOT!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lee@nova.npac.syr.edu (Lee C Brink)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 2 (was Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:15:42 GMT
	<1992Aug18.234015.25204@mtu.edu>
	<viking.714195781@vincent1.iastate.edu>
	<1992Aug19.204142.19957@mtu.edu>
Organization: Northeast Parallel Architectures Center (NPAC)
In-reply-to: cescript@mtu.edu's message of 19 Aug 92 20:41:42 GMT


   No flames intended here.  Just thought I'd clear up what I had said.

No flames here.  Just some serious questions.

   As a thought experiment, consider a firefight across a road.  Now some
   dizzy non-combatant walks into the middle of the firefight (yes, it's
   stupid, but some people do dumb things).  Should the officer worry about
   the well-being of this idiot, or keep shooting at the "bad guy"?  


Good question.  IMO, he should at the VERY LEAST hold his fire until the
bystander is out of his line of fire, if not try to get that person out of the
line of fire.  If the cop keeps shooting at the "bad guy," is he any better 
than the bad guy?


   The officer is innocent, but our wandering idiot is an innocent bystander.


Not to be sarcastic, but what are you tring to say?


   If an officer goes to arrest a suspect, and the suspect does something
   that could be construed as an attack, the officer _may_ be justified
   in shooting him.


If the suspect does something construed as an ATTACK, yes the officer would
be justified in shooting the suspect.  But how can you explain or even
justify that a woman running away from the officer is an ATTACK?


   If an officer goes to arrest a suspect, and shoots an unidentified person 
   (without a _clear_ threat)


Again, where is the clear attack?


  (s)he is probably reckless.  I would think that the well-being of persons 
  who are not suspects would be of primary importance (and it was known that
  there were non-suspects present...).


A suspect is innocent until proven guilty (Then he is not a suspect, but a 
criminal).  Suspects can be innocent.  Should their well-being be any less?

BTW, from what I have read so far, they did NOT know for certain that the
suspect was there.  Doesn't any of these police departments do a STAKEOUT 
anymore?  Plant someone inconspicuously in the area to make certain that 
the suspect is there for the raid.  God forbid they do their job right.

What I find so amusing is that incidents like this happen (Hell, the 
Syracuse PD run over bookies with their cruisers), and then the police
turn to the public and say "Why don't you trust us?"  Gee...  I can't
understand why.


     Lee

--
+---------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Lee C Brink	            | Office Support Co-ordinator at NPAC	   |
| lee@nova.npac.syr.edu     | Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244-4100 |
|			    | 315-443-1722				   |
+---------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
Date: Tuesday, 18 Aug 1992 12:33:05 EDT
From: <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Become a LIFE member, sponsor a NEW member!
Distribution: usa
 <1992Aug7.210926.24147@SSD.intel.com> <2428@cronos.metaphor.com>

In article <2428@cronos.metaphor.com>, howard@Metaphor.COM (Lee Howard) says:
>
> I just did.  The operator said that they have been swamped with
> upgrade requests since these promotions began.  Righteous! Totally
> Righteous!
>
> ---lee KC6KXI NRA Life     Support the NRA/ILA/PVF---

Absolutely right. If you are not a member... join. If you are a member...
upgrade. Sponsor a new member. Spread the word.

The number is 1-800-438-4NRA

W. K. Gorman
NRA Life
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:37:49 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
NNTP-Posting-Host: leviathan.ce.utk.edu

In article <1992Aug12.184100.29806@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> aj336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Pat Weber) writes:

>From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
>(description of horrifying SWAT terrorism deleted, then adds:)
>
>>>In a rational world, I would hope that this sad incident would cause
>>people to reconsider the concept of disarming the citizens while
>>leaving the police armed.  This incident is just one more piece of
>>evidence that the police and the courts simply cannot be trusted to
>>reprimand their own members for abuse of power.  An innocent person
>>was shot to death by police in her own home, and rather than seeking
>>justice and admitting fault, the attorney general and police are
>>closing ranks to protect their own.
>
>I don't get the connection...if the woman had been armed would this
>confrontation end otherwise? 

     Probably not.  We can always hope the police would be a little more
cautious, though.
 
>Please don't quote the US revolution to me - this was an external
>army occupying another country.

     I'm sorry, no.  At the time, the British were the colonies lawful
government.  It was a rebellion.  We call it a revolution because it
succeeded.     

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: RYAN for Ohio Sate Representative - 26th District
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 17:59:45 GMT

In article <q6PkPB2w165w@bluemoon.rn.com> jackson@bluemoon.rn.com (jack cole) writes:
>Today I met Rick Ryan as he was going door to door passing out 
>handbills.  
>
>I asked him where he stood on gun control.  He replied " I'm for a 
>waiting period for all gun purchases and I'm for some kind of 
>handgun control:
>
>Rick Ryan is running for state representative in Ohio's new 26th 
>house district.

Hope he loses.

If Clinton wins, I'll have an "impeach Clinton" t-shirt made.



Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: Mike Tighe <tighe@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Originator: tighe@convex1.convex.com
Reply-To: tighe@convex.com
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Texas
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:41:52 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

aj336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Pat Weber) writes:

> Rememebr PUSH in Philadelphia? They organized against the (white) cops.
> Their apartments were bombed.

It was Move. I would have said they won (politically) that battle. If every
SWAT operation in the US ended like that one, there would be no more SWAT
teams. You will recall that the Police action of [randomly] dropping 4 lbs.
of Tovex on the rooftop resulted in most of the neighborhood burning down.
A lot of the political leaders of Philadelphia as well as the police
department lost their jobs as a result of that action.

> Please save the romantic, 'I'll pick up my gun and just shoot one of 'em' -
> that'll teach 'em a lesson.

I agree with your point though. Better to live to fight another day, on
your own terms and your own battlefield (courts, etc).
-- 
Mike Tighe, (214) 497-4206
tighe@convex.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:19800 alt.politics.clinton:2486