HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: klin5998@elan.glassboro.edu (MARK KLINE)
Subject: Federal law enforcement agent
Organization: Glassboro State College, Glassboro, NJ
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 02:53:23 GMT

I'm interested in becoming a federal law enforcement agent. I have seven 
years experience in the casino buisness (is this helpful?). I'm just a few 
credits shy of a batcheler of arts in theatre (my career path has obviouslly 
changed in the last few years) any help in this change would be much 
appreciated.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt)
Subject: Re: Alameda County (CA) Lawsuit
Originator: swatt@mickey.CS.Yale.Edu
Organization: Yale University, Computing & Information Systems
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:21:46 GMT


In article <1992Oct6.175700.18051@netcom.com>, tmi@netcom.com (Peter Alan Kasler) writes:
|> If you've been following the Bay Area news lately you may have heard 
|> about Don Perata's newest assault on gun owners, a proposed 
|> ordinance that would require anyone purchasing a handgun in 
|> Alameda County to go to Hayward between the hours of 8:00 am and 
|> 5:00 pm Monday through Friday to be photographed and fingerprinted 
|> before being able to complete their purchase.
|> 
|> Co-funded by the NRA and the SAF, Don Kates prepared a lawsuit to 
|> challenge this proposed ordinance if it should be enacted. He also 
|> wrote the Alameda Board of Supervisors advising them that such an 
|> ordinance would not withstand a legal challenge, citing his previous 
|> victories in San Francisco in 1982, and others.
|> 

Now isn't there a doctrine under which government officials who
wilfully abuse or exceed their authority can be made personally
liable for litigation costs?  My understanding of California is there
is state preemption on firearms legislation (this is the basis under
which the S.F. handgun ban was overturned).  There should thus be
absolutely no dispute that Alameda County lacks the authority to
enact such an ordinance.  This being the case, aren't the county
officials guilty of malfeasance?

There was a court decision recently, which I cannot for the life
of me now recall, upholding liability awards against some city
officials (including the mayor) for "arbitrarily and capriciously"
denying handgun permits in wilful disregard of state law to the
contrary.  Somehow Gary, IN sticks in my mind, but I could easily
be mistaken.

-- 
  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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: "Faustus" <p00056@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Morton Grove appears in Newsweek
Organization: Inferno
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 23:44:24 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

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. This isnt some 
hobby or game, we are discussing our personal freedoms, individuality and
existance. Frankly, If Alan Gottlieb or whoever might mistakenly say something
against the right to bear arms... I would straight that person out..
Alright... maybe I am hot under the collar, but I live in Illinois with
all it's assorted political morons. If you take my flaming too seriously,
especially with the tongue in cheek way it's presented... what am I to say..


Faustus

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: "Faustus" <p00056@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Morton Grove appears in Newsweek
Organization: Inferno@Eight.Bolgia.Malebolge
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:31:55 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.01)

>DATE:   28 Sep 92 14:28:06 GMT
>FROM:   lm8637@tnessd.sbc.com
>
>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^)

Sorry, one and all... 

	Faustus

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: alford@alc.com (Mack Alford)
Subject: Re: Yet further tripe from Richard Reeves
Reply-To: alford@alc.com
Organization: Ascent Logic Corporation
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:54:44 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.235318.43429@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
conley@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>
>[ from Kansas City Star, 9/28/92. Reprinted without permission ]
>
>
>STUDIES _PROVE_ GUN CONTROL WORKS
>
>by Richard Reeves
>
>Homicides and Suicides Decrease Significantly in Cities
>Where Strict Procedures Govern Purchase and Possession.
>
>
>Seattle (UP) For reasons not clear to me, it has always been
>difficult to get up-to-date and relevant statistics on the
>relationships between guns and crime. But some more patient
>researches than I, using the numbers of the 1980's, have
>shown - proved, I would say, what we all know: guns don't
>kill people; people with guns kill people - including themselves.
>
>Three studies that impressed me appeared first in the New England
>Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medial Association:
>
>  o  "Handgun Regulation, Crime, Assaults and Handguns", in the NEJM
>     ( by a group headed by John Henry Sloan ), compared homicides and
>     suicides here in Seattle and in Vancouver, B.C. for the years
>     1980-1986, finding that almost everything about the cities, 140
>     miles apart, was the same except gun-control laws and homicide
>     rates. Your chances of being shot were eight times greater in
>     Seattle.
>  o  "Effects of Restrictive Licensing of Handguns on Homicide and
>     Suicide in the District of Columbia" appeared in the same
>     journal ( by a team headed by Colin Loftin) and indicated that
>     despite Washington's self-description as a murder capital, the
>     District of Columbia's gun-control laws did reduce homicides
>     by more than 25% over a decade.
>  o  "The Presence and Accessibility of Firearms in the Homes of
>     Adolescent Suicides" in JAMA ( by David Brent and team ),
>     found that teen-agers in homes with guns are 75 times more
>     likely to kill themselves than teen-agers living in homes
>     without guns.
>
>Those studies were discussed, together with others, in the current
>issue of The American Prospect, a liberal political journal, by
>Carl T. Bogus, a professor of law at Rutgers in New Jersey. He led
>with the Seattle-Vancouver comparison, pointing out that the two
>cities, one the the US, one in Canada, had about the same population,
>the same household income, the same unemployment, the same crime
>rate, and whose citizens even watched the same television shows
>during the six years of the study.
>
This same tripe showed up in the San Jose Monkey News.  As I remember, there
was discussion in this group some time ago that rebutted these studies.  If 
someone will provide me with this information, I will be glad to write a letter
to the editor to try to rebut this here in San Jose -- I encourage others to do
the same wherever it appeared.  

Regards, 
Mack Alford
alford@alc.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.conspiracy
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Outlaw Fire NOW!!!!
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:36:17 GMT

uk09365@nx02.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten) writes:

] > tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
] > ] One maniac with a gun can kill dozens of people;  
] > ] Luby's Resteraunt, Texas,
] > ] MacDonalds, California, etc...
] 
] Arsonists can do worse:
] 
] MGM Grand Hotel, Las Vegas - 84 dead
] Happyland Night Club, NY City - 80+ dead
] (?) Puerto Rico Hilton - 97 dead
] [numbers might be mixed up]


Robert Thank you for clarifying that we CLEARLY
have a NEED to outlaw FIRE as it is DANGEROUS!!!!

Just Say NO! to Rapid Oxydation!!!!!

ciao
drieux


ps: one wonders if the clear connection between the
Oxygen Kabal and HeteroSexuality and this problem
with Rapid Oxydation....


-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
From: robs@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert Sipe)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Brady Bill dead for the year!!
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:03:41 GMT
Organization: Boeing


   Republicans were able to block the Brady Bill in the Senate.  Senator
Joe Biden, sponser of the Brady Bill, has pronounced the bill dead!  It is
suggested that you call your senator and thank him for his/her vote 
against the bill.


-- 
Statement made by Oliver North when asked to comment on Clinton's draft
record.  "I would rather vote for Jane Fonda than Gov. Clinton!  At least
she has been to North Vietnam."
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Stupid question time
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 00:31:56 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
NNTP-Posting-Host: maine.ce.utk.edu

In article <6780@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

>In article <1992Sep25.003944.4005@osf.org>, craig@dimple.osf.org (Craig Peterson) writes:
>> There is already something that ensures that these legislators and
>> judges uphold the consitution.  When they are sworn in they swear that
>> they will uphold the Constitution of the United States...
>> 
>> If they don't, there are laws that deal with people who break such
>> oaths.  At the very least they should be recalled due to fraud.
>
>I believe the specific term is treason.  It's such an ugly word.
>I think it needs to get out more.

     No, it isn't treason.  Treason is very specifically and narrowly
defined in the Constitution to consist *only* in levying war against
the United States and giving aid and comfort to their enemies.
     Dragging out treason and widening its scope is a very, very
bad idea.

  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: NSW homicides
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 00:36:54 GMT

In article <LAMBERT.92Oct1003841@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au> lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
>I thought that Andy's problem was that he could not add together 1 and
>1.  It turns out that he doesn't know the meaning of the word "parameter".

Nope, Andy's right again.

> On Sat, 26 Sep 1992 19:37:58 GMT, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) said:
>> There's the "nothing else happened" parameter.
>
>Andy, please look up the word "parameter" in a dictionary and try to
>post something sensible next time.

Andy's posts have been extremely sensible.  The model has parameters
and the fitting has parameters.  Some of those parameters are common
to both, and some aren't.  When discussing the whole, we shouldn't
ignore the fitting-specific parameters, even though Lambert's "my
model is so much simpler" argument does.

>> There's the choice of years to ignore (or not) parameter.
>
>Andy implies here that the years chosen for the analysis (1911-30)
>were chosen to give the model a better fit.  This is not true.

No, Andy didn't imply anything about the reasons for data selection,
but that it was done, that other choices were possible, that data
selection was a parameter, a choice made.

>> The point is that Lambert both misrepresents his model's simplicity
>> and the meaning of that simplicity.
>
>Do go on Andy.  How have I misrepresented the meaning of that
>simplicity?

Lambert has claimed that his "step" model is to be preferred over more
complex models because it fits the data adequately.  Yet, once we
count even some of the factors involved in the process of applying
that model to the data, factors which he doesn't count, the relative
simplicity is less than he claimed.

The step model is for a reality where a significant number of people
in Oz decided on a given day that they wouldn't kill with the guns
that they already owned.  None of them became convinced at other times
because of the law, or changed their minds.  Curious.  It is for a
reality where nothing else of consequence happened during the relevant
time period.

Yes, the "nothing else happened" assumption presents a problem with
trying to use statistical methods; it simply isn't true for long
enough to gather "enough" data.  The known-to-be complex reaction of
complex organisms also come into play here.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Perot
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 06:48:01 GMT

In article <j156368@pro-amber.cts.com> rsopicki@pro-amber.cts.com (Randy Sopicki) writes:
>Being that Perot is back in again could someone educate me as to his stance
>on gun control?

He hasn't been too clear on it (not a big supprise to anyone following his
campaign tactics...) He seems to favor privately owned guns, but also 
to support "reasonable" laws to keep guns out of the "wrong" hands.
Since almost all gun control laws make such claims, his position isn't
clear. (Does he think the Brady Bill is "reasonable"? Or an 
"assault weapon" ban?) Several years ago, he did make some remarks
about closing off "bad" neighbourhoods and conducting house to house
searches for illegal drugs and firearms. So, he thinks even "reasonable" 
laws should be enforced in a manner quite contrary to the Constitution...

                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Tuesday, 6 Oct 1992 13:57:34 CDT
From: Wesley Bielinski <U53734@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Why we should have gun control

In article <1992Oct1.144641.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu says:
>I guess that's why they say,
> "Support Gun Control--Make a Criminal Smile."
>--Ray Cote
"Gun control is being able to hit your target!"

Wesley J. Bielinski                    | "I love my country,
SGT, USAR       U53734@uicvm.uic.edu   |   it's my government I fear!"
12th Special Forces Group (Airborne)   |     Support RKBA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman)
Subject: Re: Candidate ratings on RKBA
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:31:51 GMT

In article <1al4liINNq9s@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb063@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher J. Crobaugh) writes:
>
>Here is a composite rating of the candidates for OHIO offices...
>                               OCDC   NRA
>Seat Dist.  Name              Grade  GRADE Party Incub.
>           UNITED STATES SENATE
>USS   OH  John Glenn            F          R       I


When did John Glenn become a Republican?

I would like to compile the ratings by party, but the list needs to be
more reliable than this.  Any other errors you can spot before I start?
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is seldom that any liberty is lost all at once." David Hume
|||  clc5q@virginia.edu (Clark L. Coleman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)
Subject: Re: California gun laws
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:57:26 GMT

>
>Gee, Massachusetts could teach THEM something.  Here, they require
>a safety course, and YOU have to pay for it yourself!
>-- 
>

Actually, the state does not require a course.  Many police chiefs do,
however, and there is court precedent that this is a reasonable and
valid requirement for a local chief to add.  It all depends on where you
live in the state - some communitites do not require a course; others
require a course (generally accepting any NRA course); and others 
require range qualification on the police range.

ps:  I've seen numerous cases of experienced shooters being forced to
     endure a basic intro course since many chiefs who require courses do
     not offer any other options.  (Some do - The town where I originally
     got my LTC generally requires a course but waived the requirement 
     after asking me a few questions about my shooting experience).

Rob Boudrie
rboudrie@chpc.org
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Brady Bill dead for the year!!
Date: 3 Oct 92 23:11:47 GMT
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club

In article <3778@bcstec.ca.boeing.com> robs@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert Sipe) writes:
>   Republicans were able to block the Brady Bill in the Senate.  Senator
>Joe Biden, sponser of the Brady Bill, has pronounced the bill dead!  It is
>suggested that you call your senator and thank him for his/her vote 
>against the bill.

i hadn't heard this incredibly good news.  if i underatnd correctly,
that means sarah brady and her ilk will have to start from scratch
next legislative session.  if all predictions hold, the anti-gunners
stand to lose the most in this year's elections.  hopefully, this
will keep the brady bill from even clearly committee (ok, so i'm
being optimistic)!!!  with perot in, slick willie's chances just
went down big time.  things may just work out after all.

drew
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ctdonath@rodan.syr.EDU (Carl T. Donath)
Subject: Re: Stupid question time
In-reply-to: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com's message of 24 Sep 92 18:08:02 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 92 11:44:45 EDT

<Re: keeping congress from passing unconstitutional laws>

There's a basic problem: 

Congress followes rules (laws passed, the Constitution, etc).
If someone in congress chooses to not follow a rule, they can do so if either
(a) others agree to not follow the rule, or (b) nobody notices.
The resulting bill that (presumably) gets passed will become law if
the President OKs it.
At that point, if it really is unconstitutional, it continues to exists
until a citizen challenges it before the Supreme Court and it gets ruled
unconstitutional, thus nullifying the law.
(This supposedly happened repeatedly under Roosevelt: pass a socialist law
and follow it until declared unconstitutional. Then pass a slightly modified
version, and repeat cycle. The delay time was happily misused.)
This is our great system of checks and ballances (it _is_ better than any
other system methinks).
Unfortunately, like any system of rules, it only works when _all_three_
_branches_ follow the rules.
Thus one reason for the second amendment: if the government stops following
the rules (i.e. constitution), the people have the power to revolt (an
unmentioned fourth branch of checks and balances). Read the beginning of the 
Declaration of Independence.




--
\-\-\ ctdonath@rodan.acs.syr.edu   Carl T Donath                          /-/-/
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
/-/-/ Information is the key to power and the key to prevent power abuse. \-\-\
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Is it Treason? (was: Re: Stupid question time)
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:40:24 GMT

In article <6829@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com
(C. D. Tavares) writes:

> In article <1992Sep28.214514.1335@osf.org>, craig@dimple.osf.org
> (Craig Peterson) writes:
> > As was pointed out
> > earlier, passing unconstitutional laws knowingly is treason.
> 
> I pointed this out, but I was wrong.  According to the Constitution,
> treason requires dealing in some manner with an enemy.  Certainly
> it should be a high crime.

Well, there *are* some blatantly treasonous acts being performed.
Suppose one branch of government passes laws which are blatantly
unConstitutional.  Suppose a second (and perhaps 3rd) branch approve
these laws, which are in excess of their Constitutional powers.  Now
suppose that one branch calls this a "War on Drugs", and prosecutes it's
agenda, in excess of it's Constitutional powers...

       "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying
	War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid
	and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the
	Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession
	in open Court."

Since "We the People..." formed the United States, an unConstitutional
War on the People is certainly "levying War against them".  Treason
*is* the correct word.  There are at War with the People, against the
United States, and at War with the Constitution.

-- 
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: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Stupid question time
Date: 26 Sep 92 18:13:39 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Sep24.193452.27904@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:
>[1] Fully Informed Jury Amendment.

Agreed.

>[2] Judicial Term limits.

Only if judges may _never_ be re-elected. The idea of a judge worrying
about public opinion when his rulings can send a man to jail, is 
unacceptable. Justice and public opinion are far too often at odds.

>[3] Judicial Recall Power.

We already have this: All federal judges and Supreme Court Justices
serve "hold their Offices during good Behavior..." and can be
impeached by Congress.

                                            Frank Crary
                                            CU Boulder
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Re: A little on self defense (what should I carry ?)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:15:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.144047.16509@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:
>|>...he recommended
>|>carrying a "Magna-Light" or equivalent large, metal flashlight.

>|I believe it is Detroit that has now outlawed anything over 3 cells....

>Are you shittin' us? Where did you hear that? Is it any METAL flashlight
>over 3 cells? Is the cell size specified?

I think it is any metal case flashlight above a certain length. (This 
a vague memory of a rumor, however...)

> I noticed that LEGEND makes
>a 3-AA cell metal flashlight... I wonder if that odd size was chosen
>so that it could double as a martial arts instrument? 

Probably: There are lots of techniques for a bar ~1/2" diameter and
~6" long...

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns