HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: Crime and punishment (was Re: 20/20 to crucify FFL holders)
Keywords: FFL, criminals getting FFLs, HCI agenda
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 11:31:46 GMT

jrh@mustang.dell.com (Randy Howard) writes:

>harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:

>>There's always going to be someone who disagrees with the moral lesson
>>that someone else would be teaching in a school.  That's all the more
>>reason _not_ to teach morals in a school.  _MY_ children wouldn't
>>attend such a school, even if I approved of the moral lessons.

>Are you *sure* that this is not happening in the school they are attending?

Absolutely.  I have no children. ;) I meant to refer to my children
in a sort of future tense.  Sorry for the confusion...

>Some of it is very subtle.  I would think if every parent were to make 
>random visits to their childrens classes from time to time, they might be
>totally amazed at the things being tought in public schools today.

I agree.  Parents must take an active role in their children's
education, and that doesn't mean just showing up for Parents' Night.
It means keeping tabs on what they're being taught and doing something
about it if you don't approve.
-- 
-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------
  "I think I've reached that point / Where every word that you write /
  Of every blood dark sea / And every soul black night / And every dream
  you dream me in / And every perfect free from sin / And burning eyes /
  And hearts on fire / Are just the same old song" -- The Cure
From: pacdata!jimh@uunet.UU.NET (Jim Harkins)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: dealing with a police officer
Date: 19 Dec 92 00:24:42 GMT
Organization: Pacific Data Products

In article <1992Dec16.070619.23606@netcom.com> pauly@netcom.com (Paul Yoshimune) writes:
#You resent it being assumed that you're a violent criminal?  Maybe you should
#try being a cop.  I mean, think about it - you deal with people all day who are
#pissed off because you're giving them tickets or whatever, plus all the
#violence directed toward you by perps.  Not just that, but you have to deal
#with the negative image most people have of cops.  So, after dealing with these
#criminals who wouldn't think twice about wasting you, you're supposed to 
#assume that the person you've just pulled over is Mr. Honest Citizen who simply
#made a mistake and wasn't paying attention to the speedometer?  Think of it
#this way - if you pulled someone over, who you knew nothing about, would you
#take the chance of getting wounded/killed?  Surely you'd think of your health,
#and your family/friends/whatever, and not be so foolish...

Sit on hands, count to 10....... try 20....... nope,

Maybe the cop should try being a firefighter, or a coal miner, or a nurse in
an AIDS hospital.  You know, something really dangerous?  Maybe if the cop
frets all the time s/he shouldn't be pulling people over for doing 70 in a 65
zone.

Like a lot of people, most of my dealings with cops are negative.  Either I
get nailed by a revenue enhancement officer for following traffic when said
REO needs to fill his quota, or my house is burgled and the cops don't
want to take a report, or my car is stolen and the cop says 'Well, we might
have time to investigate in 1998'.  Granted, the last 2 aren't the cop's 
fault, but it's still a negative experience for me.

What really scares the hell out of me is the TV show Cops.  These people
assume everybody is a Jeffry Dahmer wannabe and act accordingly.  What's
really scary is the realization that the show is trying to make the cops
look good.  Last year a drug bust was filmed when the cops got the wrong
house and terrorized an innocent family, the producers aren't airing that
segment.  Why not?

And don't feed me the line of 'next time you're in trouble call a hippie'.
I *am* a hippie :-)  I realize we need cops, and they deal with scum all day
long, but I resent the hell out of being (politely) treated as scum.    

Can ya'll tell I'm in the process of fighting what I consider an unfair ticket?

jim



Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:25157 soc.culture.japan:12284
From: vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.culture.japan
Subject: Re: Rikiya Asano and blatant namism (racism by another name)
Date: 13 Dec 1992 17:21:52 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, CAE/CAD Lab
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu

In <0f_g9ka00iV1E4SatP@andrew.cmu.edu> ra01+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rikiya Asano) writes:
>Yes, I do ! I like the Greek Culture! Now, what's wrong with that? And, do you
>see racism. Just because I'm asking the man if he Greek or not! C'mon!

Umm, I hate to point this out, but the Greek culture was certainly not
notable for being praiseworthy in terms of enlightened views toward
slavery.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Andy Freeman vs Random House Dictionary (was: Nabbing a car thief)
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:31:21 GMT

In article <LAMBERT.92Dec15221319@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>, lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
> >>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:17:06 GMT, cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) said:
> > (Tim Lambert) writes:
> 
> There are two minor points where the definitions differ:
> small vs small-caliber: these tend to occcur together, so this is a
> small difference.

Wrongo!  I can buy a derringer that fires the .45-70 govt; This is small
pistol, but not a small caliber.  This is far from a minor point (if you
think it is, find someone with one of these and fire it  ;-)

> slang vs not-slang:  When was your Webster's published?

My dictionary is the unabridged version, and fairly recent (1986 ??).

> Webster's definition does not agree with Andy at all, but that's
> because they were being "politically correct", not because Andy is
> wrong.  I see.

Does your dictionary give the origin of the phrase in question?

Andy claims that Random House is wrong.  Webster's claims that the
definition is not universally accepted.  Random House claims that
it has the *true* definition.  Webster's disagrees with R.H., so
Andy's claim is valid.

> So every other word in the Random House dictionary that Webster's says
> is slang is also incorrectly defined?

Correct.  If the definition is not universally accepted (at least by
the various dictionaries), you will have a hard time time claiming
that **THIS** [insert your text] is the definition (since I can always
provide a counter-example from another dictionary).

If you want to use the Random House definition, feel free; Ownership of
firearms is a Right in the U.S., and a rifle has more punch than a
dictionary any day... ;->

-- 
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
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Friday, 18 Dec 1992 12:55:55 MST
From: <ICDLJ@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Question on French Gun Laws

 Definitely check with the French Embassy.  Ask for a signed document
 re: transporting/using  firearms in France.

 (Spilt milk follows) We lost a 12 ga. Win. Model 12, a 16 and a 12 ga.
 Belgian double-barrels and a Marlin Mod. 60, .22 to French customs after
 moving from Argentina to France in 1965.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mikepb@lupus.dell.com (Michael P. Brininstool)
Subject: Re: Dr. Edgar Suter article
Reply-To: mikepb@lupus.dell.com
Organization: Dell UNIX Support
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:57:57 GMT

|> abhorred a select militia, namely the National Guard, as a threat
|> to freedom as fearful as a standing army.161 Their intent for the
|> Second Amendment was stated most succinctly by Patricbb 

Does anyone have the last footnote here?  It looks munged!

------------------------------++----------------------------------------------|
| #include "std/disclaimer.h" || MICHAEL P. BRININSTOOL mikepb@lupus.dell.com |
|-----------------------------++--------++------------------------------------|
| IF LIBERALS INTERPRETED THE 2ND       || "An armed society is a polite      |
| AMENDMENT, THE WAY THEY DO THE FIRST, ||  society!"  -- Heinlein            |
| CARRYING A GUN WOULD BE MANDATORY!    ||                                    |
|---------------------------------------++-------------------------------------
From: markl@dvorak.amd.com (Mark Luedtke)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Bad cops - a perfect example
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:13:14 GMT
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.; Austin, Texas

In article <1992Dec17.000653.15695@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.231632.24380@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> Minh Lang <minh@inst-sun1.jpl.nasa.gov> writes:
>>In article <cm=rr9f@dixie.com> John De Armond, jgd@dixie.com writes:
>>...
>>> ...   Maybe one of his belligerant
>>>victims will put one right between his eyes one day.
>>
>>I  agree.
>>
>>  == Minh ==
>
>  Oh shit!  What kind of idiotic over-reaction is this?  The
>police officer clearly was being a bit over-protective and/or
>thin-skinned, but wasn't engaging in any of the really bad stuff
>which John has mentioned many times.  The "victim" in this case
>was acting poorly.  Whether my sympathies lie with the "victim"
>or the police officer is less important than understanding that
>this is a judgement call over a minor item, and minor items do
>not justify shootings.  This is not a "perfect example" of a
>"bad cop" because this minor item doesn't show that he's a "bad
>cop".
>
>  I agree with John that poor behavior by an officer increases
>the chance that the officer (and other officers) will get shot,
>but I emphatically disagree with John's and Minh's implication 
>that minor items like this could possibly justify a shooting.
>
>--henry schaffer

I think you went a little overboard here.  I didn't read where anyone said
his actions "justify a shooting".  I think what was meant was that officers
with this kind of attitude problem are more likely to get shot.  I have no
idea whether that's true or not, but I think that was the only implication
made.
-- 

Mark Luedtke    markl@dvorak.amd.com

This was typed by an infinite number of monkeys.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ghm@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: registered gun confiscation examples wanted
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 03:15:31 GMT

pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:

>Would like some examples where registered guns were confiscated.
>Thanks.

In the Australian Capital Territory firearms have been licenced 
individually for some years.  Following an incident in NSW in which
a man walked around with a semi-auto centrefire rifle firing
individual shots, (i.e. in which neither the magazine capacity nor
the semi-automatic action was a factor) the ACT politicians amended
the firearms legislation so that centrefire semi-automatic rifles
could only be owned by people actively using them for military-style
target competition.  Other rifles were not re-licenced, and could be
surrendered to the police with compensation to be paid at a
dealer's valuation.

Now, there might be an argument whether this is "confiscation".  I
believe that a forced sale, even at an independent valuation, is
confiscation, but others might disagree.

Geoff Miller  (g-miller@adfa.oz.au)
Computer Centre, Australian Defence Force Academy
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Downside to FFL?
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 07:22:45 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.
Distribution: usa

jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson) writes:


>OK, 20/20 has established how easy it is to get an FFL; why aren't all
>of us FFL holders?  What are the costs/drawbacks/restrictions/etc that
>apply to FFL holders that would disuade someone (me, perhaps?) from
>becoming one?

Do you want to surrender all your constitutional rights?  If so, get a
FFL for your home.  Your place of business (home) is subject to 
"inspection" at any time by BATF and/or the police.  you must
record all your weapons, even your personal ones, in your inventory
and must record their purchase and sale.  You have a greater risk
of break-ins.  BATF is very hostile toward home-dealers and will
burn you for even the least paper violation.

These opinions come from watching the experiences of a friend of mine
who used to do gunsmithing out of his home.  He occasionally sold a 
new firearm when customers asked him to order it.  He's had two 
disputes with BATF over paperwork, separated in time by about 3 years.  
Both times, he was suddenly subjected to a number of "inspections"
at rather odd hours and he was IRS audited.  Coincidence?  
Maybe but consider that he's never been audited before or since.

On the advice of his lawyer, his rather radical solution to the problem was 
to break off a chunk of land from his property, erect a barn-type building, 
have the PO assign an address to the building and moved his FFL to that 
building.  They could still search him but they no longer could come in 
his house.  He has since moved into a storefront.  

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Organization: Doctoral student, Materials Science and Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:17:24 -0500 
From: Seth Adam Eliot <se08+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Kalifornia (was: Re: Guns, Registration, and the Second Amendment)

Excerpts from netnews.talk.politics.guns: 14-Dec-92 Re: Guns,
Registration, and.. by steve hix@concertina.Eng 
> In article <1992Dec12.162424.8845@mic.ucla.edu> mdeering@agsm.ucla.edu
(Michae
> l Deering) writes:
>  
> >Kalifornnia, in another of its continuing desparate efforts to buy another 
> >coat of polish for the cheap brass that is the reality of the Golden
State, d
> ecreed
> >that ALL motor vehicles, even those which are NEVER on the public
roads, must
>  
> >be registered.  They no longer allow vehicles stored on private property to
> >be exempt from registration fees.  
>  
> This is known hereabouts as "revenue enhancement".
>  
> Another tool used to achieve the same end is to neglect to send out the
> normal annual notice of registration renewel (the which includes the
> required registration fee...which seems to increase by a random amount
> each year).
>  
> Once you fail to pay the required registration (which amount will be unknown
> to you) fee on time, you get to pay the fee plus a penalty.
>  
> Revenue enhancement. Look for future opportunities to contribute.

The solution is to pay all these imposed *taxes* using the IOU's that
the state used to pay it's employees.

I am not the originator of this idea, but I like it...

-Seth

__________________________________________________________________________
"Why am I dangerous?...
                    ...because I'm right!"     -Rush Limbaugh

Seth Eliot                    Dept of Material Science and Engineering
                              Carnegie Mellon Univerity,   Pittsburgh, PA
ARPA    :eliot+@cmu.edu       |------------------------------------------
   or    se08+@andrew.cmu.edu |
Bitnet:  se08%andrew@cmccvb   |      
------------------------------|
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: New Libertarian Gun Control Book
Organization: Twilight Zone
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:56:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.015104.19925@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
>Kopel's book can also be ordered from the NRA. Phone number is given
>in the American Rifleman which I don't have access to right now.
>
	That would be 1-800-336-7402 for credit card orders.

	NRA Sales Dept.
	PO Box 5000
	Kearnysville, WV
	25430

	-Andy V.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: edward@locutus.dell.com (Edward Godwin)
Subject: Re: Dr. Edgar Suter article
Organization: Dell Computer Corporation
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:43:22 GMT


In article <1gfqpkINNsfc@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bb063@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher J. Crobaugh) writes:
|> 
|>  GUN PROHIBITION IN THE MEDICAL LITERATURE - TELLING THE TRUTH?
|> 
|> 
|> by Edgar A. Suter, MD
|> Family Practice
|> 5201 Norris Canyon Road, Suite 140
|> San Ramon, CA 94583 USA

		[ MAJOR CUT ]

|> 
|> Good evidence exists that violence in entertainment contributes
|> significantly towards violence in our society. [191, 192] That
|> unwelcome contribution should be minimized. Voluntary restraint by
|> an entertainment industry cognizant of its ill effects on children
|> is desirable. Parents may exercise control over their children's
|> viewing habits. The misdirection of anger and frustration amongst
|> the poor and rich alike can be mitigated by training. [193]
                                                         ^^^^^

		[ Major Cut ]

|> 193 Spivak H, Prothrow-Stith D, and Hausman AJ. "Dying Is No
|> Accident." Pediatric Clinics of North America. 1988; 35: 1339-47.
|> u an individual right to keep and bear arms are the US Senate
|> Subcommittee on the Constitution159 and the US Supreme Court.160
|> The numerous papers and statements of the authors, signatories, and
|> commentators of the Bill of Rights show unequivocally that
|> militia was, in their view, the armed citizen. They clearly
|> abhorred a select militia, namely the National Guard, as a threat
|> to freedom as fearful as a standing army.161 Their intent for the
|> Second Amendment was stated most succinctly by Patricbb 
                                                        ^^^^^^^

Looks like an accidental truncation somewhere.  Can someone repost the final
footnote in a complete form?  Thanks.

________________________________________________________________________________
Edward Godwin                         |  "Stupidity is always a capital crime."
edward@locutus.dell.com               |         - Larry Niven _N-Space_
**NRA**ILA**TSRA-Life**ARC**          | 
________________________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer:  My opinions are not presented as remotely related, or similar to,
the opinions of my employer.  They can make up their own minds.......
From: smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: RE: Mail Order SKS
Date: 20 Dec 92 19:36:00 GMT
Organization: who knows
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

<92351.141413JCEHC@CUNYVM.BITNET>, <JCEHC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes...
>   According the piece in today's New York Times he purchased the SKS
>on Monday in Pittsfield, Mass.  The Times calls the SKS a modified
>AK 47 and labels the gun an "Assault rifle" several times in the article.


Of course we know what this implies: another 'assault weapon' on Clinton's
ban list. The SKS could be a cheap investment for the future :-)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ncollins@cray.com (Nathan Collins)
Subject: Re: Bad cops - a perfect example
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 17 Dec 92 08:58:40 CST

No, I'm not a policeman, don't even know any. I know there's been people
mistreated by police, but I've been mistreated by many people, in many walks
of life, I don't have to brand them all as 'bad'.

My 2c worth . . . 


-- 
Nate Collins                           "I speak for myself, not my corporation,
Field Engineer -  Cray Research, Inc.      and not for you, just for me."
e-mail:    ncollins@techops.cray.com    Located in the greater Pittsburgh area
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Black Leaders
Date: 15 Dec 92 22:55:20 GMT
Organization: Twilight Zone

In article <3683.167.uupcb@yob.sccsi.com> jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray)  writes:
>Andrew Betz writes....
>
>AB>alas, this is probably true.  still, you would think that the
>AB>members of the black organizations would oppose gun control,
>AB>and that the leadership would reflect this.

	Given the Dred Scott case.
>
>I believe Roy Innes (sp) of CORE is adamantly opposed to gun control.
>There are probably others but I can't recall offhand who they are.

	Roy Innes is quite outspoken about his opposition to gun control.
	He is one of the few Black leaders that are not kissing the
	collective ass of the white liberal establishment.  He has consistently
	shown he has the guts to stand firm on what he believes to be the
	right thing and I respect him very much for this.  He is also very
	articulate and knows more or less exactly who's screwing whom here
	in America today.  His son was murdered (shot) about 20 years ago
	exactly because Roy did not tow the PC line, if I remember correctly.  
	Similar to the death of Malcom X in that respect, as far as I can see.

	Innes' main strength (IMO) are also his weaknesses, i.e. he is an
	intelligent and dignified person that maintains his decorum and
	seems to always act in an intelligent and civilized manner.  Sadly,
	it seems what he needs to get more attention from the Black community
	is to behave like an idiot bufoon, ranting and raving idiotically
	in the fashion of the beloved Al Sharpton.  Since he seems unwilling
	to stoop to this, it seems that he may never get the chunk of public
	attention and support I feel he deserves.  Too bad; if Black America
	were to wake up and get smart with Innes and CORE you'd see changes
	you never thought possible IMO.  Of course, Innes would be dead inside
	a few months and then perhaps it would be civil war... oh well :(.
	

	-Andy V.

	"To sleep, perchance to dream,
	 To lust, perchance to cream...

				-Me
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns