HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment Myths
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:37:23 GMT

In article <81628@bcsaic.boeing.com>, rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
(Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:

> Earlier, I made two points in response to the ongoing debate in this newsgroup
> and elsewhere over the RKBA:
> 
>    1)  There is no good reason to believe that "well-regulated militia" only
>        referred to a "well-trained militia," and not the more usual sense
>        of a controlled body.  

I posted this yesterday also, but you either didn't read it, or
it has not arrived at your site.

It appears that Hamilton was a proponet of the militia being under
the control of the federal government (as you suggest "well-regulated
militia" means).  Hamilton, however, uses "well-regulated militia"
in a form that supports the "well-trained militia" interpretation.
(The Federalist Papers, available in e-text from Project Gutenberg, shows
only two references to "well-regulated", both in Hamilton's writings)

------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERALIST No. 29

Concerning the Militia
From the Daily Advertiser.
Thursday, January 10, 1788

HAMILTON

To the People of the State of New York:
[...]

 To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes
 of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through
 military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to
 acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the
 character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to
 the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

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

It appears that "military exercises" helps a group to "acquire
the degree of perfection" which give this group the "character
of a well-regulated militia".

Hamilton's use of "well-regulated militia" does not correspond to
yours.  His use seems to quite clearly mean a "well-trained militia".

> Despite a direct challenge that people come up with counterevidence to (1),
> nobody has.

This is the second time I've posted this for your entertainment.

> This does not mean that the contrary claim will not be made over and over
> and over again in this newsgroup.  Only that that claim remains unusupported now
> and probably will remain unsupported in the future.

And the claim is supported by Hamilton's usage.  He used different
language to state that the militia should be under federal control.

> To understand the problems with original intent, you might want to take a look
> at the following works.

Thanks for the pointers, I'll see if my local (understocked) library
has them...

-- 
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: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Black Market guns
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:22:53 GMT

In article <la57l7INN4fi@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>, fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM
(steve hix) writes:

> In article <6#gnvkn.nagle@netcom.com> nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:
> >
> >       I've given up on gun control, but ammo control has possibilities.
> >Ammo has a shelf life.
> 
> Ammunition is also probably even easier to make than the firearms that
> use it.  I assume you have heard of reloading, but possibly you forgot.
> 
> In any case, the shelf life of ammo can be pretty long, given proper
> storage conditions.  (Reliability becomes an issue over time, though.)

This is questionable, too.  Old ammo (turn of the century) is just now
getting old enough that people can guess it's lifetime.  Newer ammo
(WWII) is much better, and they still have no idea what it's lifetime
is (it's only 50 years old ;-).  Modern ammo has improved from WWII,
so it's lifetime might be measured in centuries...

-- 
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,alt.society.civil-disob
From: Kevin Langston <langston@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Black Market guns
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Originator: langston@eugene.convex.com
Reply-To: langston@convex.COM (Kevin Langston)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Technical Operations
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 14:19:27 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.

viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>
>	Ammunition that can be fired in a pistol, when sold, must be
>recorded along with the buyers name, ssn, address, and the like.  

    Didn't this go out with the FOPA 1986?

-- 
--  Kevin Langston           Convex Computer Corporation, Technical Operations
--  langston@convex.com  --  langston@frontier.lonestar.org
"A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state,
 the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed." JNS
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.society.civil-disob
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Black Market guns
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 19:43:11 GMT

In article <6#gnvkn.nagle@netcom.com> nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:
>       I've given up on gun control, but ammo control has possibilities.
>Ammo has a shelf life.

Yup, the 100 year-old ammo a friend uses has maybe one misfire every
thousand rounds or so.  It's considered extremely unreliable....

Newer ammo is supposed to last longer.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: lib007@muvms3.bitnet (Tim Balch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: RKBA - are you missing the point?
Date: 3 Sep 92 11:21:07 GMT
Organization: Marshall University

In article <1992Aug31.213648.897@mtu.edu>, cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) 
writes:
> Rulings probably carry more weight than verdicts, but there's no reason you 
> shouldn't be able to cite previous verdicts from a similar case.  (is there 
> a *legal* definition of "precedent" which differs from common use?).
>

From __Black's Law Dictionary__  6th ed. (St. Paul MN: West Publishing Co,
1990):

	Precedent--an adjudged case or decision of a court, considered as
furnishing an example or authority for an identical or similar case afterwards
arising or a similar question of law.  Courts attempt to decide cases on the
basis of principles established in prior cases.  Prior cases which are close in
facts or legal principles to the case under consideration are called
precedents.  A rule of law established for the first time by a court for a
particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases.

	Verdict--the formal decision or finding made by a jury, impaneled and
sworn for the trial of a cause, and reported to the court (and accepted by it),
upon the matters or questions duly submitted to them upon the trial.  The
definitive answer given by the jury to the court concerning the matters of fact
committed to the jury for their deliberations and determination.

	Ruling-- ... May also refer to judicial determination of admissibility
of evidence, allowance or motion, etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy A. Balch              LIB007@MARSHALL.WVNET.EDU
Marshall Univ.                LIB007@MARSHALL
Huntington WV
"Knowledge is of two kinds; we know a subject ourselves, or we know where we 
can find information upon it."   Samuel Johnson
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: theune@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Peter Theune)
Subject: Re: Hurricane Andrew
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 12:38:02 GMT

erudnick@pica.army.mil (FSAC-SID) writes:



>The story I hear about the aftermath of the hurricane in Florida goes
>something like this:

>After the city of Homestead was damaged, moderate numbers of looters came
>from Miami. These were repelled by the local citizenry using their
>personal arms. The looters then returned in much larger numbers, with
>true military equipment (full auto weapons, sniper rifles, night vision),
>and shot anybody who resisted. This is the reason Bush sent in the
>troops.

I was in Homestead helping my best friend seal up his house and salvage
what was savable. The only incidents I heard about involved "socialists"
invading a house containing two women who did not believe in
"socialism". They were both shot with handguns. The perps fled, but were
caught on the next block when their next victims had shotguns.

The cops I spoke to didn't mention any large scale firefights or auto
weapons. 

I suspect you have heard urban legend.  I have remained in contact with
several people down there, and none of the
autoweapons/nightscopes/invasion story has been confirmed. Most of the
goblins don't have access to the truly heavy stuff, but a few might.
There was no evidence of this however.

>Of course, no mention in our "free" press. Anybody hear something like
>this?

 So , what else is new ?  
>Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
>Protect the Second Amendment - boycott Ruger products
>"That's not true," Bill hissed to his lawyer. "The facts are-"
>"Don't worry about facts, Bill, no one else here does. Facts can't
>alter this case."       -"Bill the Galactic Hero" Harry Harrison

Peter Theune


Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:20345 soc.culture.french:6299
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan M Kossack)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.culture.french
Subject: Re: Guns, and the folly of trusting our governement.
Keywords: guns and rape
Date: 30 Aug 1992 23:20:08 GMT
Reply-To: kossack@qvi.com
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Rice University, The Republic of Texas

In article <1992Aug29.061315.1128@rhrk.uni-kl.de>, andrick@rhrk.uni-kl.de (Ulf Andrick) writes:
|> > -------------------  R A P E  -----------------
|> >                                 PER         ABSOLUTE
|> > RANK  COUNTRY                   100,000     NUMBERS
|> > ====  ========================  =======     ========
|> >    2  West Germany              77.49       48,075
|> >   22  United States             26.30       40,168
|> > 
|> > 
|> > Unfortunately, I don't have stats for assaults, and other violent crimes.
|> > It does look like Europe has a problem with rape.
|> 
|> These numbers are regrettable, especially for Germany. But I don't see
|> how rape is related to the subject of this thread, which is 
|> guns. (Guns are rarely used in rapes, at least in Germany.)
 
            Whereas in the States, women are willing to use   
       firearms to prevent a rapist from completing the act.  

-- 
 Jordan M Kossack   |   
  kossack@qvi.com   |   Guinness and Harp and Bass ... oh my!  
  +1 713 240 2073   |   
  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:09:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.004352.8495@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>It doesn't deny it, no, but neither does it give it special protection, 
>either. So any state who can show a "rational basis" (as opposed to 
>"compelling interest", or whatever) for controlling access to firearms for 
>folks not in a well-regulated militia, can do so with violating the Federal 
>Constitution.

Who, exactly, can define "well-regulated"? Certainly the state and
federal governments have no authority to do so (if they could 
define it as they like, then the Amendment would offer no real 
protection of such groups). 

The Militia Act of 1792 (a federal effort to organize a "well regulated
militia") might offer some clue: All members (male citizens within
a certain age range) were required to own firearms, maintain them, 
assemble for a day every few months to practice military skills and
be part of a very loose organizational structure. This gives some
idea of the level of "regulation" the framers thought necessary
for a militia. It's worth noting that every rifle club I've ever
hear of fits this discription.


                                                Frank Crary
                                                CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.society.civil-disob
From: technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Kevin Kadow)
Subject: Re: Black Market guns
Organization: Technology News, IIT, Chicago, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 00:14:19 GMT

In article <6#gnvkn.nagle@netcom.com> nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:
)technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Kevin Kadow) writes:
)>	A simple survey of unsavory local characters in Chicago gave the
)>following figures
)
)>Street price  "Gun Store" price   GUN     
)>  $25           $60-75              Raven P-25 auto
)
)       Interesting.  The Wall Street Journal claimed that the street
)price of the Raven was much higher than its normal retail price, in
)an article a few months back about the Raven's manufacturer.
)The gun costs $13 to manufacture, they claim.  Made in USA.

The gun may be built for $13, but it retails for $50 and up, and from the people
I'v spoken with, you get what you'd expect for $13.
)
)       I've given up on gun control, but ammo control has possibilities.
)Ammo has a shelf life.
)
)					John Nagle


Current production ammo, if sealed in tins, has an almost infinite lifespan.
The components to handload ammunition are stockpiled by many people, and
while it takes a lot more technical competence to manufacture shells from
scratch (primers,casings, propellant and bullets), it can (and will) be
done.
-- 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: Policing Ourselves
Organization: Twilight Zone
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:49:22 GMT

In article <24AUG199213391362@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> spzkny@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES ZAKANY) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.221627.8586@cbfsb.cb.att.com>,
> osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) writes...
>
>>>(Jim Zakany, me)
>>>Why don't we (gun owners) police ourselves to insure that gun owners are 
>>>competent to own and operate such a potentially dangerous device?
>
>>(Andy V.) 
>>	A good idea, to be sure.  This is the way in which we can make it
>
>>>The best NRA activity (IMO) are its educational services.  If backing 
>>>allows, I would like to see it promote a gun safety standard.  Passing such 
>>>a course would be a prerequisite to purchasing/registering a gun.  
>
>>	HOLD IT RIGHT THERE!  This is a terrible idea.  Too open to the abuses
>>	of salami politics...
>
>You're right.  I REALLY wanna keep politics the hell out of it!  
>You may wnat to keep it voluntary, but I wouldn't bet on it being KEPT 
>voluntary.  

	Exactly.  These things become entities unto themselves and exist for 
	their own sake after a while.  That's why you make it a social thing.
	Then there's no abiding structure to take on a life of its own.  It
	exists as long as it needs to and then is gone, come the proper time.

>
>>	What you propose is not characteristic of a free and responsible
>>	society made up of individuals that have the guts to live strong
>>	and deliberate lives, but rather of imbecile children that want
>>	their toys but not the responsibility of handling and keeping them
>>	on their own and in an intelligent manner.
>
>What I propose IS characteristic of the society in which we live.  
>Americans (judging by our laws) are exactly "imbecile children ..."  I 

	Unfortunately, and as much as I'd LIKE to disagree with you on this
	point, I cannot.  I think you have hit the nail right on the head and
	have driven it clear through to the other side of the plank :((.

>
>I fully agree that such a system should be "voluntary", but you know how 
>THAT goes...:+(  I can see states requiring "an NRA Safety Certificate or 
>the equivalent" in upcoming legislation.  I can see worse if no such 
>program exists...

	Perhaps.  I guess I've just been in a "fuck you, I ain't compromisin'"
	mood lately.  Ho hum.

	-Andy V.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: little murders, inane suggestions
Organization: Twilight Zone
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:54:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.183808.8945@infonode.ingr.com> pat@fitz.uucp (Patrick Fitzgerald) writes:
>
>Any typos are mine.
>
>[copied without permissoin from "The Huntsville Times", Aug 28, 1992]
> 
	This Reeves person is a certifiable IDIOT.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jdw@unislc.uucp (James Warren)
Subject: Re: Black Powder (Was: So Much for Iowa.... (Was: Black Market guns)
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:22:20 GMT

From article <ATAYLOR.92Sep2163740@gauss.nmsu.edu>, by ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy):
> In article <viking.715410352@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
> 
> 	Probably. However, I failed to point out that BATF still
> 	has a requirement for dealers to record name/address/
> 	drivers license number for all sales of black powder,
> 	presumably as a result of the reclassification of
> 	black powder from "powder" to "explosive".
> 
> 	I know, I just bought some last month. It was a surprise
> 	to me, as I hadn't given ID for a powder sale in years.
> 
> 	Upon reflection, I realized I hadn't bought any black
> 	powder since around 1982.....
> 

I bought some BP about two months ago.  There was no request for me to
fill out any forms.  I handed them $8 and they handed me a can of powder
and some change.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: No Difference Between the Parties?
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:06:46 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Sep3124723@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
|> <In article <1992Sep2.192620.13443@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) writes:
|> 
|> <   I look forward to a substantive answer to my original question. I would be
|> <   surprised if such a recorded vote can be found in the last 20 years on
|> <   gun control (showing no difference between the two major parties.)
|> 
|> 	The evidence is in your favor. Republicans controlled the
|> 	Senate in the early 1980's. Not only were no anti-gun
|> 	bills passed, McClure-Volkmer (a mixed victory) *was*.
|> 
|> 	Anyone have the Senate vote record on McV? What
|> 	about the House?
|> 	
|> 	My failing memory asserts that it was passed standalone,
|> 	or very close to standalone...but I am not at all sure.

A thought WRT this discussion. Things have deteriorated so far and the
Good Citizens of the USA (tm) have lost so much ground that we need to
retake the high ground not just defend the little swamp that we have left.
As far as I can tell The Libertarian party is the ONLY political party
interested in actually rolling back the tides of tyranny.

				mike
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Suicides, injuries, and Vigilantees.
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 02:38:44 GMT

hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:

>In article <1743@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:

>}I wonder if Kalifornia has had any pressure to enact any laws making
>}it a felony charged against the owner of a car, or other potentially
>}dangerous tool if someone gets hold of it and injures or kills themselves
>}or someone else?  ...

>Pretty much been that way for years.  The owner of the vehicle is
>responsible for damage caused by it, even if they aren't in or near
>it at the time.  You loan your car to a friend.  They have an accident.
>_You_ are liable for damages.

	I take it that this is partially the reason why auto insurance
covers the vehicle and not the driver?  I wonder who thought that idea
up and who bowed to pressure when writing the laws?  My money's on
the insurance companies asking for this so John Doe with the $215 Chevy
isn't liable for cracking up that Rolls Royce he borrowed.

	I think, as I read it, the owner is liable for financial damages,
the operator for criminal charges.  I also wonder how this extends to
pther forms of property?  I'd hate to think John can borrow my cordless
drill again and I'd be responsible for him gutting himself with it.
"Yeah, Dan, I was tryin to clean out my navel lint with a 3/8" wood-boring
bit, and I sorta slipped and holed my liver.  Shredded it, kinda.  My
lawyur tells me you're responsible for supplying the donor organ.  Oh,
you can pick yer drill up at my place any time ya like!"

	<sigh!>

<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