HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Re: Recent Richard Reeves Column
Keywords: gun grabber
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:36:41 GMT

>                Drastic Steps to End the War at Home
>
>     * Repeal the Second Amendment to the Constitution because it is
>now insanity to give all Americans the right to bear arms.

Ack.  Usual socialiste tripe.  I'm sure this guy would be happy
to take away people's right to self-defense (against criminoids
and/or tyranny).  But he isn't telling you that he's part of
the power-elite, and will not have to worry about being mugged
because he can afford "acceptable" self-defense measures, as
in a private security service.

>     * Establish a federal agency to regulate handguns as the Food and
>Drug Administration regulates pharmaceuticals--to register and trace
>domestically manufactured and imported weapons and ammunition.

Has anybody told this dingbat about the BATF?  This is an amazingly
dumb suggestion, seeing that guns have been effectively registered
in this country since 1937 as part of FDR's New Deal (Some deal, huh?).

>     * Review all handgun licenses and licensees, with the idea of
>revoking most of them.

And prove once and for all that registration leads to confiscation.
May all gunnies have an adequate supply of PVC tubing and a big ol'
can of cosmoline, just for insurance.

>     * Declare an amnesty period in which handguns could be turned in
>to recycling stations without penalties or questions.

And how's this joker going to justify *ordering* people to turn
in their property without compensation?

>     * Use emergency police powers (and military powers, if necessary)
>to sweep neighborhoods for illegal weapons.

Yeah, that'll sure do it, like interdiction has done jack shit to
stop drugs.  But I suppose this guy is willing to submit to
random body cavity searches to "get those guns?"

>     * Establish an automatic 10-year sentence without parole for
>illegal weapon possession convictions.

Nothing like a good, fair law like Bartley-Fox amongst friends,
is there (*EXTREME SARCASM*)?  

>     Draconian?  Really?  And what do you call it when Americans have
>to risk their lives to pull up to a stop sign or take the kids out for
>hamburgers?

I call it like it is - a gungrabber's paradise.  Jokers like this
have made it illegal for people in many states to carry the means
to defend themselves.  This clown needs to explain why gun BANS
(a la D.C.) have done nothing but turn it into the stinking cesspool
of crime that it is.  And why adjacent "easy access" states have
lower crime rates.  We're waiting.

Drew

p.s.  I'm now relocated from Ohio to Idaho.  This place is *really*
      pro-gun! 
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Reading Brady
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:47:08 GMT

In article <5868@transfer.stratus.com>
cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

>
>In article <71586@apple.Apple.COM>, earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace) writes:
>
>> Assume the chief says "that guy can't get a gun because my records show
>> he's a MeanRottenBadAssCriminal".  So you go after him, spend $10,000
>> and 2 years defending yourself.  You "win" the case.  The chief will not
>> be punished (trust me).  Was it worth the effort and don't you think the
>> chief knows that it wasn't?  Who really won?
>
>One can make an identical argument for ANY law.  (The chief says of COURSE
>you were doing 100 MPH past the crosswalk at the Lawrence Welk Memorial
>Nursing Home.  And on the day that your car was in the shop, you walked
>by and flashed the codgers.)
>
     Not quite.  As far as firearms background checks, you go to the police.
With other laws, the police come to you.  The police can't declare you
were speeding if they don't know you exist.  With background checks, they
get all the people they need to screw over in one nice neat little
list every day.

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: schabel@calspan.com (Dave Schabel)
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Keywords: n
Organization: Calspan Advanced Technology Center
Distribution: ca
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:03:20 GMT

In article <l9l42bINNl99@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) writes:
>In article <71613@apple.Apple.COM> vossron@Apple.COM (Ronald N. Voss) writes:
>>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>
>>>Voss disagrees.  He thinks that a gun law succeeded if a fatal
>>>shooting is replaced by a fatal stabbing.
>>
>>Right.  They'll switch to drive-by stabbings.
>
>Oh, come on Ron.
>
>If they have half a grain of sense, they'd substitute with something
>more like drive-by bombings, either with explosives or incendiaries.
>(A bit of imagination is not the sole preserve of the law-abiding.)
>
>This is assuming that any gun law will have any measurable positive
>effect on determined criminals, which is quite a stretch, I'll admit.
>
>

Right!  It's very likely that they'll switch to stroll-by
shootings, since it's far more likely that all the passers-
by will be unarmed.


					Dave Schabel
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Militia's and the right to keep and bear arms
Date: 27 Aug 1992 17:22:52 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: earthquake.berkeley.edu

In article <81383@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>You only make my case.  There was a debate over the need for militias and
>standing armies.  The federalists got their standing army and the anti-
>federalists their reference to militias.  It is perfectly reasonable to
>assume that the federalists were satisfied that the 2nd contained enough of
>a hedge with "well-regulated militia" to imply government control.  That
>language was necessary to gain compromise on the issue.

Not really: Both sides accepted the arangements in Article One Section
Eight: A joint and limited control of the militia by the states and Congress
Neither government body was to have control of the militia, without
the cooperation of the other.

Regardless of the issue of control, the "militia" refered to (by any sort
of evidence you like: Original intent, federal laws or Supreme Court
rulings) refers to _all_ able-bodied citizens. 

As such, the Second Amendment assures all able-bodied citiznes, in there
capacity as members of the militia, unrestricted access to the militia.

>Again, you make my claim.  Madison had no authority to publish his notes as an
>official record.

He never claimed they were official. Nor were they the only notes on the
debates published. Madison's were the most detailed, and from comparison
with other's memories and printed notes, Madison's were fairly accurate.

>There was no official record, because the delegates wanted to
>be free to make any argument. 

No, the lack of official minutes was more a habit of the times: It
was neither a common nor a regular practice. For example, Patrick Henry's
famous speach to the Virginia House of Burgesses ("Ceaser had his Brutus,
Charles I his Cromwell, and Geroge III... [cries of treason from the
audiance]... could learn by their example.") is only know from the
diaries of those in the audiance. There were no regular minutes of the
debate. The Constitutional requirement for Congress to keep such records
was something of an innovation, so _everyone_ (not just those who could
come and watch the deabtes) would know what was going on.

You neglect, however, my two key points: The records of the Constitutional
Convention are irrelevant: The Second Amendment was proposed and debated
before the House of Representatives (second session of the first Congress,
I believe.) Detailed, official records of these debates exist.

Second, original intent as a means of interperting the Constitution was
endorsed by the leading "political theorist" of the day (Jefferson and
Madison, for example.) The opponents of this (Hamilton, for one) had
a politicial agenda to expand government powers beyond those granted by
the Constitution.

						 Frank Crary
						 CU Boulder
						 (Even though I'm
						 still using my
						 Berkeley account...)
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover
Date: 27 Aug 92 20:46:29 GMT
Distribution: us
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <17j5p1INNngq@agate.berkeley.edu>, fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary) writes:
> By the way, since 1934, there have been only3 crimes committed using 
> registered automatic weapo.

OK, this week alone I have seen one, two, and now three quoted.  I have 
in the past heard "a police officer doing a murder for hire," "a police 
officer in NJ," and "a police officer in FL" (two of these are probably 
the same police officer).  Does anyone have the definitive list, please?
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak)
Subject: Bad weather in Florida
Originator: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 14:17:37 GMT


Now that south Florida has had its' butt kicked by mother nature,
and New Orleans is next on the list, has anybody heard about
civilians having to defend themselves against looters and such?
To his credit, the Gov of Florida didn't waste any time in 
getting the NG out on the streets, unlike in LA.  I have heard
via CNN that some areas will be without power for 5-7 days.
This tends to create a looters paradise.  (If there is anything
left to steal!).

I did see the one film clip of the 3? NG troops fighting with
a looter.  The one NG guys' M16 went flying through the air,
across the parking lot and into a puddle of water.  At one
point it was even underneath the looter.  Great weapons
retention :-(   Hope the saftey was on!

When CBS said that Dan Rather was live in Florida riding out
the storm, I was hoping that a building would fall on him.
No such luck.  Maybe they will send him to New Orleans and
we will have one more chance!

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER NOT!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:26:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <17e5osINNsgo@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>
>Bullshit.  Hunting license fees constitute a teeny fraction of
>the money spent on the environment.  Are you trying to tell me
>the budgets for EPA, Interior, and Agriculture are primarily
>funded by hunting license fees?  I don't have the numbers in front
>of me but I'm certain this is way off base.

Guess again.

The largest single source of funds for purchasing animal habitat
for the purpose of leaving it alone, or improving it, for the
benefit of one or more animal species come directly from hunting
and fishing license fees, and money from hunting and fishing
organizations.

It may be self serving, to a degree or two, but they've been
doing it longer than any other sort of organization, including
the Sierra Club (and all the rest), of record.

Note that habitat purchased to be left undeveloped benefits more
than just the prey species intended...but that's ok with me.

Note also that I don't hunt. But I do wildlife photography and
birdwatching (but not nearly enough).

The government agencies you mention are not primarily funded by
hunting fees (but they are by taxation, which affects hunters,
too).  On the other hand, most of the money spent in these
offices goes to running a beauracracy, not actually getting anyting
out in the field.  They're extremely inefficient in that respect,
if still intrusive.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: Guns, and the necessity to trust our governement.
Keywords: guns and fascism
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 03:43:14 GMT

marcmil@microsoft.com (Marc Milanini) writes:

>In article <viking.714553765@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>>>We agree that European countries have less criminality than the USA.
>>>As a matter of fact, thay also have harscher control on guns...
>>
>>	Neither of which has anything to do with being able to purchase,
>>or not purchase, M16's from the fore sale ads in a newspaper.  If you
>>demand stats, the readers of talk.politics.guns have them in abundance.
>>Your own contribution is welcome, but note who you're debating against.

>Not directly of course, since M16s are very seldom used in gun crimes.

So why worry about whether or not they can be legally owned?

>How do you expect gangsters not to be able to buy weapons if regular
>citizens are allowed to do so ?

Turn this around  -  why should regular citizens be disallowed from buying
weapons when the gangsters already have them and when such legislation
will not stop the gangsters from getting more through smuggling and/or
illegal manufacture?

Geoff Miller (g-miller@adfa.oz.au) | "The first duty of power is to perpetuate
Computer Centre                    | itself.  The first duty of free men is to
Australian Defence Force Academy   | resist it."  Mike Resnick
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kapson@quip.eecs.umich.edu (John Kapson)
Subject: Re: Gun Purchase Laws
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:52:52 GMT

In article <22064@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (aaron greenwood) writes:
>Is there a FAQ list for talk.politics.guns.  One question I have
>is in what states can you by guns without leaving a paper trail.

Any state.  Just go to the nearest big city, go downtown, and talk
to a few people who appear "streetwise".  It helps if you don't look
like a cop, BTW.

>In California there is a 15 day waiting period thus a record of
>you purchase.  I guess what I am getting at is in what states can
>you buy a gun where the state does not get involved.
>
>starbuck

+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| John Kapson   NRA IEEE ACM  |                                              |
|                             |   My gun is safer than Ted Kennedy's car.    |
| kapson@dip.eecs.umich.edu   |                                              |
| jkapson@nis.naitc.com       |                                              |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:20495 talk.abortion:34651
From: minh@inst-sun1.jpl.nasa.gov (Minh Lang)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 2 (was Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:02:40 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
X-Xxdate: Mon, 31 Aug 92 09:03:14 GMT
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9

In article <viking.715157593@vincent2.iastate.edu> Dan Sorenson,
viking@iastate.edu writes:

>>I believe that you cannot UNINTENTIONALLY fire a single shot with
>> a weapon set to auto. If it was really unintentionally, i t should be
>>a burst. At least I have tried that in the pass
>>on several full automatic weapons such as the AK47, M16, Thompson
>>and the M60 machine guns. I couldn't let out less than 2 shots no
>>matter how fast I released the trigger. 

>	I think you meant "intentionally" in that first sentence.  In any
>event, what's the cyclic rate of the MP5 versus the M3?  I can get a one-
>shot from a full-auto M3, but it's a slow firer and I really have to try
>to get it.  If that MP5 has a faster cyclic rate, what are the odds of a
>one-shot to the neck from this weapon on full auto?

I do mean "unintentionally" in my first sentence. In other word, I don't
believe that you can accidently fire a single shot with the weapon
set to auto mode.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: Atlanta Journal and Constitution: an excerpt...
Organization: Twilight Zone
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:31:00 GMT

In article <67210@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox) writes:
>The AJC has a section called "Perspective", which I can only
>assumes is defined as "our propaganda section". The top story in
>today's (Sunday, August 30,1992) section is in big letters:
>	"Rethinking nation's war on crime"

	Voluminous body of vomitous mercifully deleted.
>
>Just thought I'd share my disgust with the net.

	On behalf of the many GI tracts here, I wish to extend to you our 
	heartfelt thanks

	-Andy V.
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Militia's and the right to keep and bear arms
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:31:10 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 10047@athena.mit.edu, sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
>In article <81141@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:

>>Two points:  (1) Your linguistic claim is unfounded.
>
>Wrong.  All historical evidence of what the Fouding Fathers said and
>believed supports his rock solid linguistic interpretation.

Produce the evidence, if you believe it exists.  I examined the OED on
the usage of "regulated" and found that the modern usage predates the
2nd amendment.  For example, there is a reference to "well-regulated
courts" in 1712.  

The word "regulated" is defined as "Governed by rule, properly controlled
or directed, adjusted to some standard, etc."  A 1697 reference has "Those
regulated Societies, which are now conspicuous among us for many good works."
A 1766 passage on surveying:  "Then may you measure all the whole chains
by your regulated chain."  A 1790 reference from Adam Smith:  When those
companies...are obliged to admit any person, properly qualified...they
are called regulated companies."

The verb "regulate" in the OED is defined as "To control, govern, or direct
by rule or regulations; to subject to guidance or restrictions; to adapt
to circumstances or surroundings."  A 1682 passage from Dryden:  "Critics
would regulate Our theatres, and Whigs reform our state."  A 1792 reference:
"Can freedom be regulated without being...in some part destroyed?"  

The obscure meaning which you attribute to the expression "well-regulated" was
by no means the preferred interpretation of the word at the time.  But please
feel free to offer some evidence that your more obscure definition of the
word, when applied to troops, had a specialized meaning in the late 18th 
century.  So far, no evidence of any kind has been advanced for the claim.
It has only the status of an unfounded assertion by people who are hardly
inclined to view the matter objectively.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 2 (was Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:47:13 GMT

In <3-hn5ya@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:

>>Since you've fired a
>>few hundred rounds through such a critter, what does it take for an
>>automatic burst of one round at a 4" x 3" moving target at, say, ten feet?

>There are 1.67 milliseconds between rounds at 600 rpm.

	(I'm going to regret this...) How do you figure that?  1 millisecond
is 1/1000 second, isn't it?  600rpm=10rps=100milliseconds/round, or am I
missing something in all this?

>I'm completely comfortable saying with 100% certainty that our good old
>budy Tony could not fire one round in full auto under tactical conditions.

	So what happened (trumped fanfare)?

>Either that weapon jammed after the first shot (doubtful.  Was that mentioned
>in the paper) or he was on semi-auto and flipped it to auto after the 
>event.

	I'm partial to the semi-auto then switch theory.  I recall nothing
here saying the weapon had jammed.  Either way, letting loose with a full-
auto burst during a raid shows some disregard for the suspects and their
associates, and hence some poor training and dicipline.  It would be nice
to know which happened, but both point towards a problem with that police
force and other people are certainly in need of review on this.

>From the news reports, it does not look like I'd ever get a chance 
>because good 'ole Tony is not going to be charged.

	Pisses me off too, John.  However, it has been an enlightening
discussion, has it not?

>BTW, are we gonna talk about that fellow in Idaho and the government tactics
>used or is it considerd "OK" to hunt him down like a dog because he is
>a white supremist?

	I haven't heard or read enough on it to form an opinion.  From what
I understand, he fired first on a U.S. Marshall scouting out his place.
Shooting for tresspassing?  On the other hand, one article mentioned
Marshall's rushing the house, where a number of people were killed in the
following firefight.  Not good.  His attitudes and prejudices should have
nothing to do with the way he gets arrested.  Why don't we take this up
under a different subject name?  I'd like to see what others have heard
or read on the matter.  Here, it gets little factual press.

<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