HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Bob.Hirschfeld@p2.f74.n114.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.music.filk
Subject: Re: azclu follies 1993
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 12 Dec 92  18:42:00

> DMN> WHOOOF!  I WANT IT!  If Joe doesn't mind, that is . . . and I don't
> DMN> care if it's pro- or anti-gun.  Is OK to post it, Joe?
JB> Sure! Lemme look in my files for it...tho it's in one of the FFILK*.ZIP
JB> files, in all probability.
Here it is, Joe, as you sent it to me (it was worked on a bit to fit, but sung 
pretty much the way you wrote it, as I recall)
Date: 04 Apr 92  12:11:00
From: Joe Bethancourt
  To: Bob Hirschfeld
Subj: ACLU parody.....here it be!
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 Herewith the filk for your ACLU Follies....mebbeso I gonna re-write from
 here and make it into a better (and more original) song, but this should
 be easy enough for quick learning......<evil grin!>
 
             GUN CONTROL COME
                 -Joe Bethancourt
            (Tune: "The Banana Boat Song")
 
 Day-o...Day-ay-ay-o!
 Gun control come, they'll be raiding our homes!
 
 We all support the Bill of Rights!
        Gun control come, they'll be raiding our homes!
 Except that part that we don't like!
        Gun control come, they'll be raiding our homes!
 
 Those evil guns should all be barred!
 Except the cops and the Army and the Kennedy bodyguard!
 
 We attack the symptom, that's the answer!
 Like giving asprin for lung cancer!
 
 Take away the guns, we have no crime!
 (And we've lived in Oz for a very long time!)
    [note: singer should get a cockeyed and very vague look on his/her
    face on this verse .... Fuzzy Liberal sort of thing]
 
 We can trust the government American!
 Just ask a whale or an Indian!
 
 Freedom of Choice for your daughters and sons!
 Except when they want to own a gun!
 
 The ultimate defense of the laws of the land:
 Is educated citizens with weapons at hand!
 
 The truth is pretty self-evident to me:
 The right to bear arms is the right to be free!
 
 (stop suddenly, and say, in a thick German accent:)
 
 "So! All of you are nodt zinging! Vell! Ven -one- piece of der
 Bill of Rights goes avay, maybe pretty soon the rest follows,
 nicht wahr? Der Jews didn't haff guns either.....but der -SS-
 did! Und ven der -lawyers- don't haff guns.....heheheh!"
 
 (not in German accent:)
 
 Of course, that can't happen here........or can it?
 
 Day-o...Day-ay-ay-o!
 Gun control come, they'll be raiding our homes!

--- DB 1.38/911162
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
						Conclude included article.

I hope you folks enjoyed this as much as I!

					d

-- 
		"I've let my cat use my typewriter on occasion,
		    and the results were cryptic at best." 
						-- Larry Niven
	Duke McMullan n5gax nss13429r phon505-255-4642 n5gax@leo.unm.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Bad cops - a perfect example
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 23:48:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.233412.3766@newsgate.sps.mot.com>,
rigg@ssdt-tempe.sps.mot.com (Dana Rigg) writes:

> In article rr9f@dixie.com, jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
> >This came from rec.guns but the proper followup belongs here.
> >Here is a perfect example of the kind of pigs that give them all a bad
> >name.  And this guy thinks it's funny.  Maybe one of his belligerant
> >victims will put one right between his eyes one day.
> 
> May I point out that John seems to believe deadly force is an acceptable
> response to recieving a traffic ticket.

I don't think John said any such thing.  It looks like he said that cops
who violate their oath to office (to uphold the laws of the land, including
upholding the Constitution) deserve no respect, and are likely to be shot.

> Seems to me that this is the type
> of person that has made traffic stops such a stressful and potentially
> dangerous experience for all of us, police and civilian alike.

Especially when the traffic stops are done *illegally*...  I must agree
that cops who do this have made "traffic stops such a stressful and
potentially dangerous experience".

-- 
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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: New Libertarian Gun Control Book
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:51:04 GMT

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.

The information in this book about the legal systems of other
countries is compelling in its own right.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
The Columbia River is now the most radioactive river in the world.

This environmental/nuclear nightmare, one of a series, brought to you
courtesy of General ("We Bring Good Things to Life") Electric.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mdeering@agsm.ucla.edu (Michael Deering)
Subject: Re: Guns, Registration, and the Second Amendment
Organization: UCLA, Anderson Graduate School Of Management
Date: 12 Dec 92 16:24:23 PST

In article <1992Dec10.190111.28221@berlioz.nsc.com> alan@lancaster.nsc.com (The Hepburn) writes:
>In article <1992Dec8.133237.487@super.org>, pcolsen@super.org (Peter C Olsen) writes:
>|> I had occasion to reread the Second Amendment recently and rediscovered
>|> that its full text was:
>|> 
>|>      "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."
>|> 
>|> It seems clear to me that the Framers must have been allowing for the
>|> possibility of regulation (and, by implication, registration) when
>|> they wrote this.  Based on this, I would argue that it is
>|> constitutional to require both registration of firearms and testing
>|> and licensing of their owners, just like is done for automobiles.
>
>I think that everybody here would accept a model based on the automobile.  I
>may go to any dealer I choose, and purchase any motor vehicle I choose, from
>a little moped up to a Kenworth.  I do not need to provide any identification
>unless I'm planning on financing the purchase.  I hand the dealer the cash, and
>they hand me the keys.  If I plan on using the vehicle on public roads, then
>I must show evidence of having a valid drivers license, and pay the registration
>taxes.  If, on the other hand, the vehicle is not to be driven on public roads,
>then I am under no obligation to show a drivers license, or to pay registration.
>
>When was the last time a car dealer told you:  "I can't sell you that car
>because someone in Washington thought it looked too much like the car that
>crashed during the Le Mans race last year and killed some spectators."  Now
>contrast that with a gun dealer saying "I can't sell you that gun because
>someone in Washington thinks it looks too much like something that the Militia
>might have a use for."
>
>-- 
I checked your .sig and saw you were indeed posting from Kalifornia.  It is a 
shame that your analogy has been weakened by a recent change in the law.  
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, decreed
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.  But, at least, you still don't need a 
license to store them.  Mebbe next year.

Mick
>Alan Hepburn           "An ignorant person is one who doesn't know
>National Semiconductor       what you have just found out."
>Santa Clara, Ca              
>alan@berlioz.nsc.com                              Will Rogers


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mjp@austin.ibm.com  (Michael J. Phelps)
Subject: Re: 20/20 to crucify FFL holders
Originator: mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 12:11:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: mjp@vnet.ibm.com (Michael J. Phelps)
Organization: IBM Kingston NY
Keywords: FFL, criminals getting FFLs, HCI agenda


My wife and i watched the 20/20 show.. it seems that the claims made were:

 a. the NCIC database is not well maintained.  
 b. the BATF is not doing thorough background checks - even given 1.5 months
     to perform them
 c. the BATF is not using its current powers to examine the FFL's books, nor
     tracing back from recovered firearms to the FFL who sold them.

 our suggestions?

  a. fix the NCIC database.  The ramifications of this extend well beyond the
issuance of FFLs.
 
  b and c: BATF already has plenty of power to enforce the law; its simply
failing to do so!  Adding yet another law (that will not be enforced) is not
going to cure anything.

 IOHO the show failed to stress that the failure is at the BATF.

 We have our letter written; now we just need an address for 20/20 - anyone have
one?
-- 
Michael Phelps, (external) mjp@vnet.ibm.com ..
                (internal) mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com .. mjp at kgnvmy         
 (and last but not least a disclaimer)  These opinions are mine..
Date: Saturday, 19 Dec 1992 21:58:04 EST
From: <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Bad cops - a perfect example
 <1992Dec19.234808.4166@mtu.edu>

In article <1992Dec19.234808.4166@mtu.edu>, cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
says:
>
>In article <1992Dec17.233412.3766@newsgate.sps.mot.com>,
>rigg@ssdt-tempe.sps.mot.com (Dana Rigg) writes:
>
>> In article rr9f@dixie.com, jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>> >This came from rec.guns but the proper followup belongs here.
>> >Here is a perfect example of the kind of pigs that give them all a bad
>> >name.  And this guy thinks it's funny.  Maybe one of his belligerant
>> >victims will put one right between his eyes one day.
>>
>> May I point out that John seems to believe deadly force is an acceptable
>> response to recieving a traffic ticket.
>
>I don't think John said any such thing.  It looks like he said that cops
>who violate their oath to office (to uphold the laws of the land, including
>upholding the Constitution) deserve no respect, and are likely to be shot.
>
>> Seems to me that this is the type
>> of person that has made traffic stops such a stressful and potentially
>> dangerous experience for all of us, police and civilian alike.
>
>Especially when the traffic stops are done *illegally*...  I must agree
>that cops who do this have made "traffic stops such a stressful and
>potentially dangerous experience".

Case in point: The four assholes who were just fired from the Detroit
force for deating a victim to death. I understand they face additional
proceedings. If more departments would weed out slimes like these,
I suspect 1) the number of bogus busts would drop, and 2) the level of
respect for cops in general would increase.




Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: 20/20 to crucify FFL holders
Keywords: FFL, criminals getting FFLs, HCI agenda
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:43:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.121100.24936@watson.ibm.com>, mjp@austin.ibm.com 
(Michael J. Phelps) writes:

>   b and c: BATF already has plenty of power to enforce the law; its simply
> failing to do so!  Adding yet another law (that will not be enforced) is not
> going to cure anything.

Maybe the whole idea is to wait until they are granted so much power that
when they decide to enforce it, they can *anything* they want...  Do they
envy the power of the drug warriors?  :-(

-- 
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: C08926RC@WUVMD.Wustl.Edu (Rob)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: RE: Mail Order SKS
Date: 16 Dec 92 14:35:11 GMT


#I just heard something on the news about some kid (I use the term generically;
#I don't know his age, but I think he's a college student) who supposedly
#bought an SKS through the mail and used it to shoot up a bunch of people.
#
#HUH?  I thought you couldn't buy modern firearms through the mail?  Anybody
#know anything about this?

Yep - the initial news reports were wrong.  The student purchased the
SKS from a nearby gun store earlier in the day.

I would expect talk of extending the Brady bill to cover all guns now...

The only firearms you have shipped directly to you are pre-1898 and/or
black powder firearms....


Rob
From: boucher@csl.sri.com (Peter K. Boucher)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: A Coffee-House Conversation with an Imaginary Nadja
Date: 16 Dec 1992 19:18:00 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Lab, SRI International
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: affirmed.csl.sri.com

In article <LAMBERT.92Dec15191656@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>,
lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
|> >>>>> On 10 Dec 1992 15:42:49 GMT, boucher@csl.sri.com (Peter K. Boucher) said:
|> > (Tim Lambert) writes:
|> >>Kennesaw Burglaries 1976-1986
|> >>76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 48 85 86
|> >>41 21 22 35 35 54 35 35 29 32 70

[self-contradicting arguments gone...]

|>> What is this, a joke?  The graph you've drawn represents a
|>> generalization of the shape of the graph made of the numbers you
|>> supply.  Are you hoping people won't look at any but the first and
|>> last of the series?  The numbers are increasing from 77-81, take a
|>> sudden dip in 82 (the year the law passed), stay down from 82-85
|>> before rising again in 86.  Increases followed by a dip followed by
|>> more increases.

[stuff gone...]

|>
|> So which is it?
|>
|> 1. Burglaries were increasing after the law.  (Your claim in this
|> posting.)
|> 2. Burglaries were not increasing after the law.  (Your claim in your
|> previous posting.)
|> 3. Burglaries were both increasing and not increasing after the law.
|>

[stuff gone...]

Knock, knock, knock...  Hello?  Anybody home?

I made no claims, but simply read the numbers you supply.  If you read
them, you will see that you should stop using them try to support claims
that they contradict.

In this article, as well as the others in this thread, you appear to believe
that people will read only your wise pronouncements, and pay no attention to
the facts.  You claimed that the Kennesaw law, passed in 1982, "clearly" had
no effect on the burglary rate, and you used the above numbers as evidence
to support your claim.

So which is it?

1. You didn't read the numbers before posting them.
2. You didn't understand them.
3. You hoped that your readers would fall into 1. or 2.

-- 
Peter K. Boucher
--
RIPEM public key available upon request.
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dr. Edgar Suter article
Date: 13 Dec 92 23:29:18 GMT
Organization: Western Washington University

bb063@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher J. Crobaugh) writes:

>Here is the full text of Dr. Suter's article as regards the
>rubbish and lies contained in manyh medical journals, incorrectly
>referred to as "research." Many of you will find it interesting,
>if tough reading.

> 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
				>Abstract

Where was it published?  If not in the same arena as the articles
it is rebutting, it served little use.

Jim Del Vecchio
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Rep. Schumer letter regarding FFL's
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:38:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.040846.22067@ncsu.edu> hes@ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:

>(The writer is a Democratic representative from New York and chairman
>of the House subcommittee on crime and criminal justice.)
>
>  Does anybody know more about this subject?

Schumers bill is H.R. 5633.  It is in the anonymous ftp RKBA archive in
the file:

archive.cis.ohio-state.edu:/pub/firearms/politics/rkba/congress/102nd/HR5633

Here is a short summary of the bill.

  House Bill 5633 by Mr. Schumer, July 21, 1992

  To amend title 18, United States Code, to expand the scope of the multiple
  firearms sales reporting requirement, and to require that persons comply
  with State and local firearms licensing laws before receiving a Federal
  license to deal in firearms.

As the 20/20 show tries to show, there is "a problem" that needs to
be addressed, this bill would require local law enforcemnet to sign
off on FFLs, exactly the same as is needed for buying a machine gun.
As far as I can tell, local law enforcement would have complete
discretion on whether or not to sign the FFL application.

I'm sure we'll see this bill resurrected next session, and I'll bet
it passes.  If you're thinking about becoming an FFL, do it now before
you get screwed.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: grant@bluemoon.use.com (Grant DeLorean)
Subject: Re: Ruger bashing
Organization: Blue Moon
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 05:51:38 GMT

SYSTEMM@BARNEY.ALHRG.WPAFB.AF.MIL (System Manager Wuest) writes:


>  I have been puzzeled by the ocassional "Ruger bashing" on this net (I am a 
>  relatively new subscriber).  I own some Ruger firearms and think they are 
>  great guns, and the price was right, too.

>  In the letters to the editor in the current (DEC) Americal Rifleman, Bill 
>  says that the TV show (whch I didn't see) _severely_ took his remarks out
>  of context, and without other qualifying statements.  To wit, the remark
>  about supporting waiting periods and background checks was promptly 
>  followed by the admission that the anti-gun zealots would never be satisfied
>  short of their goal of banning all guns, and that the large number of illegal
>  guns in current circulation made the effectiveness of waiting periods 
>  doubtful.  Guess which part of that total statement made the "show", and
>  what was left out.

 Yeah, Poor ol' Bill is being hurt in the pocketbook. Just because the
letters he wrote to congress asking for magazine limits and waiting
periods and "assault weapon" bans (not including any Ruger products
though...)... Those got taken out of context too, I suspect Ol' Bill
is saying. Those were only a year and a half to two years before the
show, so must have been edited by the show's staff on the way through
the post office. We will just have to learn to like only being able
to buy Ruger products (all else banned from mag and "assault weapon"
bans) with a waiting period and registration... 

 Bill Ruger makes me sick. It was years before that show I began
boycotting his products, and continue to do so today. He calls anyone
who would want an AR-15, an M1A/M14 clone, any HK or FN, etc a
member of the "idiot fringe". I can live without him and his company's
products. I already have better equipment anyway. Remember the rumors
about a .308 Mini? That was being worked on, but to make it work
right and accurately it ended up looking a lot like an M1A and Ol'
Bill didn't want to make a rifle a member of the idiot fringe would
want... 

>  Well, I feel better, now.  I still think Ruger makes a good gun at a good
>  price.  :-) 

 Their revolvers are fine, the P series semi-autos are purest garbage.

>  (Followups to t.p.g ?)

 If you insist, but I think this isn't quite t.p.g material...
-- 
\   Grant DeLorean  - IHMSA & NRA Life Member -  (grant@bluemoon.use.com)   /

        Good leaders being scarce, following yourself is allowed.
From: jimc@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Jim Cox)
Subject: Re: Andy Freeman vs Random House Dictionary (was: Nabbing a car thief)
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:25:38 GMT

>In article <LAMBERT.92Dec15025409@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>,
>lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
>
>> >>>>> On Tue, 8 Dec 1992 20:29:58 GMT, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
>> (Andy Freeman) said:
>> > That's an interesting leap by Lambert.  A dictionary has a definition
>> > so he assumes that "everyone" uses it that way.  The dictionary's
>> > definition is wrong BECAUSE usage does define meaning and the usage is
>> > "guns owned by niggers".
>> 
>> Everyone I have seen has used the Random House definition.  It would
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> be simple to prove that not eveyone uses the Random House definition
>> -- provide one single example where somebody has used it to mean "guns
>> owned by niggers".

Tim, I guess you did not grow up where I did.  SNS refered arms owned by
people of color who lived on or near 8th street, white guys could afford 
better.  

As a general statement - a am constantly amazed at how much you write 
about something you know so little of.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Jim Cox                            Internet: jimc@bartman.sps.mot.com
Phone: (512) 891-3182          UUCP Address: cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!otis!jimc
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Vigilantes
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:47:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.172616.23833@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
)319@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>
)Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:26:16 GMT
)Lines: 89
)
)In article <1992Dec15.221623.9319@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>, bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
)
)> I happen to have some data - a secondary source quoting Interpol,
)> International Crime Statistics, vols 1983-84 - apparently a 1984 survey.
)> 
)> This has crime rates of selected countries, and shows the US as the
)                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
)> leader in actual homicides of all listed at 7.9 per 100,000.  [Most
)  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

)Do you mean actual homicides, or normalized per 100,000?  Wrong on both
)counts.  (see India for actual numbers, see others for highest per capita).
)from rkba.016 (1984 data):

Actual homicides per 100,000 population - as opposed to actual and attempted
homicdes per 100,000.  [The US is one of the few countries that does NOT
include attempts in their homicide figures.]

(table omitted)

)> My secondary source doesn't have all the countries unfortunately, but
)> there isn't any country listed that has a higher homicide rate.
)
)Unfortunately, my source doesn't have all that you've listed...  Maybe
)the two tables need to be merged.

Looks like it.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: The Ninth Not Dead Yet
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:17:42 GMT

In article <1go0h3INN816@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
}Last week, there was a discussion about whether it was reasonable
}for the Supreme Court to establish new civil rights out of whole
}cloth.  I argued that the process was underwritten by the Ninth, but
}someone else argued that the Court considered the Ninth dead, and
}went through some convoluted "emanation of a penumbra" argument to
}get to the same place.

On the subject of "the Forgotten Ninth," see "The Rights Retained by the
People," edited by libertarian law professor Randy Barnett.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire