HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Re: A little on self defense (what should I carry ?)
Date: 25 Sep 92 21:06:03 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / schabel@calspan.com (Dave Schabel) /  8:58 am  Sep 24, 1992 /

>It does indeed seem to be up to the discretion of the local law
>enforcement leaders.  I seem to recall reading in one of Ayoob's
>books (I believe it was _The_Truth_About_Self_Defense_, a very
>good book BTW) that, sincE Carrying "clubs" or a variety of 
>martial-arts instruments was deemed illegal, he recommended
>carrying a "Magna-Light" or equivalent large, metal flashlight.

I believe it is Detroit that has now outlawed anything over 3 cells....
Or was it Chicago?  All those citys east of the Rocky Mountains are 
pretty much the same to me. :-)!!!!!  

Rick.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Yet further tripe from Richard Reeves
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 03:56:32 GMT

In article <6893@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>This column showed up in THOUSANDS of papers.  How about the following
>suggestion:  Somebody here post a cogent rebuttal of 200 words or
>less, and we each can sign it individually ourselves and send it to our 
>local "Reeves outlet" newspaper.  It would be more efficient than
>everybody writing a different letter to a different newspaper.

I'm not sure this would be a good idea: Thousands of identicle letters
would strike many editors as a "NRA plot..."

However, anyone writing a letter to the editor should demand (or suggest)
their local newspaper stop printing his columns, since they contain lies
factual errors and propaganda.

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder
From: lm8637@tnessd.sbc.com (Lou Montgomery (214+464-1049))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Morton Grove appears in Newsweek
Date: 28 Sep 92 14:28:06 GMT
Organization: Southwestern Bell

In article <2926715601.5.p00056@psilink.com> p00056@psilink.com (Faustus) writes:
>Strange.. I am receiving the most interesting email claiming my flame
>of persons is unjustified.. Possibly correct, but as far I am concerned
>it is time to jump down the throats of anti-gunners. 

         Well shucks, Faustus.  You DID come down a little hard on
        a poster whose position concerning RKBA is well known to
        anyone with the time to read T.P.G. even a little bit.
         I share your "hot under the collar" attitude WRT anti-
        2nd ammendment hose-heads, however, in this case you shot
        the wrong guy. {B^)


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: Join, Mike, join! (Was: A Letter To The Editor)
Date: 3 Oct 92 23:20:12 GMT

In <8110286@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> post@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (David Post) writes:

>This is not really a flame on NRA, so please read the whole thing :-)

>Before signing up for a life membership, please consider that until last
>years election, the NRA was not really very active in supporting RKBA.  They
>appear to have been more interested in supporting sporting events and other
>not so political program.

I'd like to second what David says here, also with the disclaimer that
this is *not* an NRA flame.  What it *is* is a sincere request that you
carefully consider where you choose to spend your money.  

Yes, "spend."  Make no mistake about it, whether you are buying groceries
at the market, buying a membership in the NRA, or donating to a relief
effort, you are spending to receive something in return.  Whether it
is tangible goods from the market, some insurance, a magazine and
programs to support hunting, training, and (yes) legislation from the
NRA, or a warm and fuzzy feeling, and perhaps a better society to
live in from the relief program, in each case you have bought something.

What I urge you to do is to _understand_ what you're buying.  I
send money to the ILA.  This buys me the services of men and women
on both the national and local level to oppose legislation that would
weaken the RKBA, and support the (very little) legislation that 
recognizes it.  I have not purchased an NRA membership, because I don't 
particularly want to buy any of the things they sell (except maybe 
the insurance, I'm still thinking about that.  :-)

If I send in a twenty dollar bill to the NRA, some of that goes to 
administrative overhead, some to produce a nice slick magazine, some
to send a stream of catalogs full of labeled merchandise, a little
to send me a card and a sticker that I can feel good about, some
to hunter safety training (doesn't help me unless they start hunting
pigeons in the city, but I suppose it's generally a good thing), some
to police training (and given the increase in intentional shootings
of innocents, maybe that's a bad thing  :-|), a little to the range
fund (*clearly* a good thing), and finally, a few cents to ILA and
PVF.

If I send a twenty dollar bill to ILA, some of that goes to 
administrative overhead, and the rest is spent on the thing *I*
find most important, the thing I want to buy, the fight against
the constant erosion of my rights through legislation.

I don't want to dissuade _anyone_ from joining the NRA, or donating
directly to the General Fund.  I would be terribly saddened if a 
single one of you spent less on the whole {NRA/ILA/PVF/whatever}
umbrealla this year, or ever.  I just suggest that you spend your
money on what *you* want.

-- 
Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
Hi!  I'm a shareware signature!  Send $5 if you use me, send $10 for manual!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: Full-Auto 22s manufactured by Drug-Crazed DEATH SQUADS in GLASGOW
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 13:53:00 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:

>jeffw@or.credence.com (Jeff Winslow) writes:


>1)  There is no set of 25 states with anywhere near 80% of the population.

>2)  Even if you could assemble a set like this, it could certainly not
>be done without including the open carry states that Andrew refers to.

California, Texas, New York, New Jersey, Massachussetts, Maryland,
(Washington, D.C.,), Ohio, Illinois. 
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
The current epidemic of violent crime in the U.S. arises not from drug
use, but as a consequence of government-sponsored oppression of
producers, distributors and consumers of popular drugs not produced by
(and hence threatening the market share of) the alcohol, tobacco or
pharmacutical industries (which industries, coincidentally, are the
largest contributors to the Bush Reelection Campaign and the biggest
underwriters of antidrug advertisements (which advertisements,
coincidentally, never mention tobacco or alcohol as dangerous drugs)).
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: Minh Lang <minh@inst-sun1.jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Gun control WILL work, obviously.
X-Xxdate: Thu, 1 Oct 92 11:00:58 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:57:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.155937.7135@cbfsb.cb.att.com> Mr. X,
osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com writes:
>Take my guns?!  Try and someone will die.  If it's me, I guarantee
others will
>be coming with me.  

That's my reasoning too.

>Sorry, but I'm in a truly rotten mood, therefore I will will take this
liberty
>to speak like an ass and admonish all persons in HCI to fuck off, go
home and
>make America a better place by committing suicide.

Absolutely! :-)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Privileges and Rights. (was: Re: GORE...)
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 22:29:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep23.153144.1@woods.ulowell.edu>,
cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:

> The right to keep and bear arms is a right.  There is no right to drive a car,
> it is a priveledge.  There's a difference.

I've heard this claim a couple times, but I believe it is incorrect.
The US Constitution is based on English Common Law, and the "Right
to Travel" was a Right of the English people (perhaps listed in the
Magna Carta?).  I also believe some of the early American treaties
mention this (someone once mentioned the Northwest Ordinances, though
I haven't found the reference to travel, yet).  Any prior treaties, are
binding on the US, as Article 6 states:

     "All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the
Adoption of this Constitution shall be as valid against the United
States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation."

It also seems that licensing schemes for drivers are based on the
States (wrongfully) extending their powers to regulate commercial
drivers.  So, it's quite questionable if driving is merely a privilege.

[But, we certainly agree that we have the Right to keep and bear arms]

-- 
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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: FAQ for this group?
From: ehorne@zeus.calpoly.edu (Eric T Horne)
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1992 02:37:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

  I was wondering if:

  1) There is a FAQ for this group?
  2) Thihere is a FTP site that contains any of the previous discussions
	  in this group?

  Thanx for da info!

  -Eric
From: watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Clinton Joins Arkansas Police Criticism of Bush For Blocking Brady Bill
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:51:09 GMT
Organization: Yale University, Computing & Information Systems
Originator: swatt@mickey.CS.Yale.Edu


In article <8110285@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, ron@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ron Miller) writes:

|> 
|> 1. Doing the background check costs money.
|> 2. The BC via computer won't take long. (basically waiting for NCIC uptime)
|> 3. BC via anything more will cost a LOT more. (and won't often be done)
|> 4. I would expect clearing a weapons purchase to be the last thing the PD 
|>    wants to do quickly. (and hence will NEVER beat the deadline by matter
|>    of policy)
|> 5. The PD wants to take the maximum amount of time to discourage purchases.
|> 
|> Consequently, I expect that it will be a rare case that gets cleared
|> earlier than the waiting period and it will probably be common that
|> the BC's are decoupled from delivery of the firearm due to the 
|> low  liklihood of catching any bad guys and the optional nature of
|> the clearance. 
|> 
|> Ron
|> 

I think you misunderstand how the waiting period + background check system
works (at least here in Connecticut).  The seller may transfer the gun
if (1) an affirmative response comes back from the town police and the
state, or (2) if the specified waiting period passes with no response
at all.  Thus the "waiting period" is in effect a "slop factor" for the
authorities to get around to doing the check.

I suspect local departments have a "clear all the forms every monday"
policy, or something similar.  This way if the chief knows that all
pending transfers have been processed by 5PM every Monday, even if
you make a very pessimistic assumption about the mail from the seller
to the police, he still has several days to inform the seller the
transfer is denied.

I don't think departments necessarily have a "make them wait as long
as possible" policy, it's just that the long waiting period allows them
to schedule all the transfer applications for a single "batch processing"
run and still meet the deadline.  If your purchase just happens to arrive
right at the processing time, it will get done immediately.  Otherwise,
it could just wait for the next processing run.
-- 
  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
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Brady Bill squashed and other news
Keywords: Brady, Good riddance
Date: 6 Oct 92 06:24:42 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA


	I'm using you, Clark, as sort of an example here.  Your post is
a good summary of what else I've seen, and it's high time I posted in
response.  I'm not picking on you, just using you as a decent example:

clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) writes:
> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>>.............................BTW: the bill was defeated
>>due to a Republican filibuster, something you might want to look
>>for when determining which senator to vote for in upcoming elections.

>No, it COULDN'T have been a REPUBLICAN filibuster!  After all, there is
>NO DIFFERENCE between the parties, right?  So, there must have been a
>dozen or so good, conservative, Southern Democrats taking part in that
>filibuster, right?  After all, they don't let those Northern liberals
>shove them around, do they?

	Nobody said differently; the idea of two totally-opposing
parties is as dead as voting a strait ticket in an election.  You
vote on what your constituents, or you, believe in.

>By the way, people used to talk about the Boll Weevil Democrats 20 years
>ago, and how they crossed over to vote Republican all the time.  This
>was the propaganda from the leftist news media to convince us that the
>conservatives had a well-hidden death grip on the Congress, and thus were
>actually responsible for everything that passed (and by implication, the
>Republicans were responsible.)  Hint: If you had that many crossover
>votes, you wouldn't have to filibuster.

	Excellent point!

>I'm really going to enjoy posting the summary of how the vote went, BY
>PARTY AFFILIATION.

	I'm looking forward to this post!  I mentioned the republicans
because the news has reported it as being a republican filibuster, though
it's certain many democrats and even a few libertarians and independents
might have joined in.  I'm not a republican, and I've never voted a
strait ticket.  I vote for whomever agrees most with my views.  I
merely point out it was a republican filibuster and that it might be
worth your while to consider because I expect you to look at how your
senators voted or participated in the Senate with regards to this bill.
Naturally, republicans are most likely to have participated, but it is
hardly the shame of a democrat to participate in this, is it?

	Vote a strait ticket?  Feh!  I'd rather eat a one-course meal
or have to choose only one gun to use!  Single-issue voting is for
those who can't evaluate the records of their congressmen.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>
From: bb063@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher J. Crobaugh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Admiral Crowe's endorsement of Clinton
Date: 3 Oct 1992 22:14:17 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


I would like to point out that Crowe's supporting Clintone does
NOT surprise ME even a little bit. What most readers probably 
DON't know, however, is that in his speech at his retirement
ceremony, (1989 or 1990), Crowe told the crowd that "Americans
better get used to doing without many of the civil liberties
they had come to expect, because we've GOT to win the war on 
Drugs."
	So for Crowe to support a candidate who has already
showed by words and deeds that the constitution and Bill of
Rights means not a damn thing to him is no surprise. Please
make sure to spread this word around. The speech I reference 
was Crowe's at his retirement...It was widely carried, but 
was buried on back pages. This can be checked out.....please
do and desseminate.
-- 
bb063@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu  Chris Crobaugh - (216) 327-6655 (V)
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little 
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Libertarians, guns, etc.
Date: 29 Sep 92 07:05:00 GMT
Organization: Totally Unorganized

In article <1992Sep20.200735.7839@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>In article <1992Sep20.181935.26300@news.stolaf.edu>,
>adams@mari.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Brynach ap Adda) writes:
>
>> In article <1992Sep14.185345.7746@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>> >In article <1992Sep14.010444.11220@news.stolaf.edu> adams@mari.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Brynach ap Adda) writes:
>> >>But I'm not going let my desire ... possess weapons designed to kill people
>> >
>> >I used to study weapon design.  I wonder what weapons are being discussed
>> >here.  (Hint - guns don't qualify.)
>> 
>> Now this is patently absurd. Think: why were handguns invented when
>> a long gun would be just as lethal, indeed more so and at longer range?
>> They were made to be concealable, so they could be pulled out and
>> used *on other human beings* with little warning.

I was under the belief that sidearms (handguns) were designed to equip
folks whose role is primarily non combative with a defensive tool which
would not encumber their hands, etc and interfere with their primary
task.  The long gun being more powerful, it is preferable for one whose
task is primarily combative.  That is why the sidearm is the policeman's
PRIMARY weapon, its always with the officer, available for defense, etc.

When the officer is entering a scene KNOWN to have a high liklihood
of combat, the long gun is usually taken from the car and put into
use, instead of the handgun.  I heard one comment that to knowingly
take a handgun into a combat situation instead of a rifle was akin to
taking a boy to do a man's work.

The idea a handgun is intended to surprise someone in order to murder
that person is patently false.  One could say the same of a rifle, used
at long range, and make no more sense.  The only way the element of
surprise would be of use with a handgun would be to gain control of
a situation where one is being assaulted by some thug.  Another reason
for a concealable weapon is to not distress others - its an item
kept under clothes like one usually keeps certain parts of their
anatomy under covering clothes, in order to not upset others.

> other good points deleted...

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp                                  (Pat Myrto),  Seattle, WA
                      If all else fails, try:
         ...!uunet!{pilchuck, polari}!rwing!pat
WISDOM:    "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket"
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Privileges and Rights. (was: Re: GORE...)
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:58:16 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <viking.717702835@vincent2.iastate.edu>, viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
> 	False.  A felon loses the right to vote and to firearm
> ownership during incarceration in many instances (if not all), but
> the former is returned upon leaving prison...

Depends on the state, I believe.  Many of them don't.
-- 

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: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Privileges and Rights. (was: Re: GORE...)
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:36:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.222940.17044@mtu.edu>, cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
 
> I've heard this claim a couple times, but I believe it is incorrect.
> The US Constitution is based on English Common Law, and the "Right
> to Travel" was a Right of the English people (perhaps listed in the
> Magna Carta?).  I also believe some of the early American treaties
> mention this (someone once mentioned the Northwest Ordinances, though
> I haven't found the reference to travel, yet).  Any prior treaties, are
> binding on the US, as Article 6 states:

I don't want to stray too far from the purpose of this network, but I seem to
remember that we are living under American law not English law.
> 
>      "All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the
> Adoption of this Constitution shall be as valid against the United
> States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation."
> 
> It also seems that licensing schemes for drivers are based on the
> States (wrongfully) extending their powers to regulate commercial
> drivers.  So, it's quite questionable if driving is merely a privilege.
> 
Not all drivers are commercial drivers.

> [But, we certainly agree that we have the Right to keep and bear arms]

Glad to hear it.
--Ray Cote
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Wednesday, 30 Sep 1992 11:26:29 CDT
From: Wesley Bielinski <U53734@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: 25 states ... .sig (Re: Full-Auto 22s manufactured by Drug-Crazed
 <1992Sep26.113141.20478@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
 <1992Sep28.203504.19269@gtephx.UUCP>

In article <1992Sep28.203504.19269@gtephx.UUCP>, forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford
@ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) says:
>!Next, make prisons a miserable place to be instead of a place that
>!is better than life on the streets!  Eliminate all recreation
>!facilities (having convicts come out of prison looking like Arnold
>!Schwarzenegger does us all a lot of good, now doesn't it?);  Reduce
>!the quality of food to edible, but bland (ie: grits for brkfst,
>!steamed vegies for lunch, and beans for dinner);  Eliminate TV
>!(Christ, I don't even get cable TV yet! -- there's not enough left
>!over after taking care of the bills and the kids); Eliminate
>!conjugal visits, cigarettes, "Christmas packages", etc;  Make them
>!sweat like pigs all summer and shivver all winter.  In short, make
>!prison an absolute *hell*hole*!

BUT THAT'S INHUMANE!!!      :-)

IMO, a person who commits a crime against society or a member thereof, should
forfiet the rights to belong to that society.

In other words, Treat them like shit, they deserve it for what
they did to someone else!!!

Wesley J. Bielinski                    | "I love my country,
SGT, USAR       U53734@uicvm.uic.edu   |   it's my government I fear!"
12th Special Forces Group (Airborne)   |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns