HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: googs@pravda.webo.dg.com (Joe Gugliemino)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: 2nd Ammendment Foundation and CCRKBA problem
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:23:02 GMT



This is a letter I'm mailing today.  It's posted here as an FYI.  


Alan M. Gottlieb, President

Second Ammendment Foundation
James Madison Building
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005

Citzens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Liberty Park
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005



Dear Alan,

In October I received mail from your organization thanking me for a
phone pledge I did not make.  When I called to question this mail I was
promised a resolution including a follow-up call and a copy of your
financial statement.  I received a call saying a "problem solicitor
trainee" had been fired, but in the two months since I have not received
a financial statement from you.  Instead, I have received 2 mailings
requesting payment of "voluntary dues" from each of your two
organizations (4 mailings total).

In light of this situation I have come to the conclusion that you and
your organizations are more interested in collecting money than you are
in presenting an ethically proper defense of the Second Ammendment and
the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.  Therefore you will remove my name from
all mailing and telemarketing lists and cease your solicitations.  I
will instead support organizations that I can count on to properly
represent my causes.

I am forwarding a copy of this letter to USENET, an international
computer network.  I had posted a description of the telemarketing
incident when it occurred and promised to follow it up with the
resolution.  I hope the many network users will consider these facts and
act accordingly towards your organizations.

Sincerely,


--------

                             Later,

                             Joe Gugliemino

(new address)
       |
       V
googs@pravda.webo.dg.com             Voice: (508) 870-6318
Joe_Gugliemino@dg.com                      Phone messages routinely routed
Data General Corp., Westboro, Ma.             to the nearest black hole...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Subject: Re: The NRA will always be right wing.
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:13:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.184404.12599@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Rod Anderson) writes:
>In article <1ikgh3INNp26@flash.pax.tpa.com.au> anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au writes:
>>
>>Don Baldwin laments that the gun lobby is weighed down with the label
>>of hard-core conservative.
>>
>>Here is some advice:  Give up.  The NRA will always be right wing.
>>I doubt that any NRA directors are losing any sleep over Colorado
>>Amendment 2.  Maybe one or two of them have some closeted qualms.
>>The other 90 or so (or however many there are) think that fags
>>deserve no sympathy.  If you don't believe it, ask Wayne LaPierre
>>how many homosexuals there are in the NRA.
>>
>
>Homosexuals are welcome to join the NRA.  I am sure that the NRA respects
>the gays right of self defense. 
>
>>In case you missed it, the NRA attacked one of its enemies in Colorado
>>last year by raising the issue of flag burning.  Guess which side it
>>was on.
>>
>>It is true that the GOP has been seriously damaged by its reactionary
>>posterior.  The NRA is a big part of its problem.  The GOP is either going
>>to go down the toilet, or ax the NRA and other fanatics in the party,
>>or both.
>
>Not after Slick Willie does a Jimmy Carter on the economy.
>
>>
>>Brought to you by the Society for Preservation of Human Life.
>>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Am I correct that this is an anti abortion organization?

Get a clue, the "SPHL" obviously consists of a single gutless,
obnoxious anti-gun individual who "knows" that the opinions
of all NRA members and the organization perfectly match his
preconceptions without any supporting evidence whatsoever.
Considering the country from which it is posted, it very 
well may be the same ol' aussie we once knew a David Bowman,
Brian, and Susan. 



-- 
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only  |
 | Midterm Countdown-Bill and the Congress have to '94 to screw it up |
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 14:23:33 GMT

In article <9301051932.51@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>Would it make you feel good inside to know that ex-cons who were in for
>murder or armed robbery could legally buy guns?

No, but passing laws just to make "you feel better" doesn't make sense.

What does making that illegal have to do with keeping guns out of the
hands of criminals ?  The illegal market for any good can supply almost
anything if you have the money.  And criminals will spend the money to
obtain the tools of their "trade."
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
From: 003166j@axe.acadiau.ca (JASON WILLIAM JARVIS)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: New Canadian Gun Laws
Date: 12 Jan 93 14:09:39 GMT
Organization: Acadia University


     As a young Canadian gun owner, these new laws are a real pain in the 
ass as far as I'm concerned.  I have no problem with requiring that all 
weapons be locked up and ammunition be stored in a separate place, which has 
always been one of the rules since the last amnesty in 1977 or whenever.    
I'll get a trigger-lock for my Remington 870, and hide my ammo where I'll 
forget it eventually, but how much longer will it be until the police knock 
on my door and say, "Hand 'em over, son, or we're taking you in."? I'm 
slowly acquiring equipment to shoot in organized smallbore target matches, 
but with my luck, by the time I can afford my dream Anschutz (target 
rifle), some stupid gov't flunky will call it a sniper rifle or something 
because it'll put shot after shot into the same hole and accept a scope - 
irregardless of course that it's only .22 LR! Anyway, I'm really starting 
to get pissed off over the whole thing.

						Jason
 

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:36:26 GMT

In article <9301091958.22@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>There is nothing wrong with public defense.  I just don't think that
>anyone should be able to buy a gun and carry it around the street.

So?  Which people are actually stopped from carrying by Kelly's
feeling?  As he's pointed out, criminals aren't.

Kelly confuses "stopping someone" with "stopping someone worth
stopping".  Criminals carry, so his laws don't affect the people worth
affecting.  Given that, he thinks that stopping others is "good" -
he's wrong.

>least in this town, there are drug dealers who would love to be able to
>go in and buy what they want off the shelf.

So?  Since they have what they want, what's the benefit of making it
unavailable to the rest of us.

-andy
--
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Kelly's Strawman (Was: Dressed for Rape)
Date: 7 Jan 93 21:03:44 GMT
	<1993Jan5.224957.837@Firewall.Nielsen.Com> <9301061202.15@rmkhome.UUCP>
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <9301061202.15@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
<   In article <1993Jan5.224957.837@Firewall.Nielsen.Com> jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson) writes:

<   >Note that Kelly ignores the fact that it is already illegal most (all?) places
<   >for "convicted murderers and armed robbers" to purchase firearms (as well
<   >as simple possession being a parole violation in that case).
<   >
<   >Does Kelly contend that "convicted murderers and armed robbers" would not
<   >have easy access to 'alternative' weapons sources should conventional gun
<   >shops require background checks, letters of reference, fingerprints,
<   >waiting periods, and a kiss on the cheek from the local police chief?

<   Ah, but what I have been hearing here is that there should be no laws 
<   governing the sale of weapons.  That the sale of a weapon should only
<   hinge on whether the buyer has the money in his/her hand.

	No, that's the strawman that Kelly has chosen to fight.
	His strawman has little to do with what the rest of
	us are writing about, however.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: googs@pravda.rtp.dg.com (Joe Gugliemino)
Subject: Re: TIME is on the ropes, asks for forgive
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 20:18:52 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC

In article <1ifu2eINN17c@eagle.natinst.com>, chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) writes:
|> In article <GOOGS.93Jan6131632@pravda.webo.dg.com> googs@pravda.webo.dg.com (Joe Gugliemino) writes:
|> >
|> >As a result of your position on gun control I will no longer buy
|> >Time/Life/Warner products.
|> 
|> I doubt that Time/Life/Warner will take a threat to boycot all their
|> products seriously.  They make Albums, CDs, movies, video tapes, many
|> magazines (not just Time and Life), etc.  I think they publish Parade
|> which comes with a lot of Sunday newspapers.  I also think they own
|> the Six Flags amusement parks.  The list of products is quite long.
|> 
|> I encourage you to boycot Time magazine but are you really going to
|> stop buying all Time Warner products.  If you are then more power to
|> you but if you aren't then don't make idle threats that will just
|> be laughed at.
|> 
|> -- 
|> -chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)

On the contrary, I think Time/Life/Warner will take my threat seriously.
While they may be an all-pervasive entity, I have in the past decided to
purchase their CD's and books - to the tune of several hundred dollars.
My wife has a Time subscription which we are cancelling.

While I may not be able to rid them completely from my life, I am
denying them hundreds of dollars of potential income.  Given my 
purchasing history I think that is a realistic estimate, and I believe
they will think that also.  If this happens on a large scale, my
grassroots compatriots and I will represent a significant chunk of
income which they hopefully cannot overlook.  So it's not an idle
threat, and hopefully it won't be laughed at.

-- 

                             Later,

                             Joe Gugliemino

(new address)
       |
       V
googs@pravda.webo.dg.com             Voice: (508) 870-6318
Joe_Gugliemino@dg.com                      Phone messages routinely routed
Data General Corp., Westboro, Ma.             to the nearest black hole...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: A Gun in Hand is Worth Two in the Bush (something like that)
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:11:58 GMT

In article <9301101246.30@rmkhome.UUCP>
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

>In article <16B5221A.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Vel) writes:
>>In article <9301091923.58@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>In article <PA146008.603.726338593@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (Dvd Veal) writes:
>>>>In article <9301052244.31@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes
>>>I thoought the Kennesaw, Georgia law allowed carry.
>>
>>       That particular law was geared to home ownership.  A different
>>law may very well allow carry.  (I know there's some method in Georgia.)
>>
>>>Getting a home defense weapon in Massachusetts is relatively easy.
>>       Relatively easy compared to what?  What exactly are the rules these
>>days?
>
>First, the most common home defense weapon in Mass is probably a long gun.
>The purchase of a shotgun/carbine and ammo requires a FID card.  The FID
>card is very easy to get, unless you have been in a mental hospital during
>the last five years or have been convicted of a felony in the last five years.
>It is not subject to the whim of police chiefs, and is just a minimal
>application that gets processed by a computer.

       So we've established the hoops to jump through to be allowed a
home defense weapon aren't that difficult to jump through.  How nice.
       This of course, isn't all that great, since the precedent for
having any hoops at all has been established.  And will be abused.

>>>>        Try and pay attention:
>>>>
>>>>        Gun ownership in East Tennessee is quite high.  Very high in many
>>>>places.
>>>>
>>>>        It is illegal, according to state law, for a civilian to carry a
>>>>firearm either open or concealed.  (It's a misdemeanor.)
>>>>
>>>>        People do it anyway.
>>>>
>>>>        Clear enough?
>>>
>>>Ah, but if you are carrying an illegal weapon, then you are a criminal.
>>
>>       Here's a another one:
>>
>>       Big fat hairy deal.
>>
>>       But I'll go on...
>>
>>       If the Second Amendment to the Constitution does guarantee the
>>right to keep and BEAR arms, then, according to Article VI and the
>>14th amendment, the law prohibiting carry carries no legal force
>>and is not legitimate.
>
>Ok.  So what is the RKBA gun lobby doing to rectify this disparity
>between the US Constitution and the state laws?

         You did it again!

         I have not the vaguest idea what the "gun lobby" is doing about
state laws.  My impression is currently they are more worried about
national laws.

         Do you *ever* respond to what people write?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: "Cop Killer Time Warner" (Was: Time-Warner)
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 02:52:57 GMT

ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

>	Ice-T has found it difficult to perform in some venues,
>	as neither local private security guards nor off-duty police
>	(surprise, surprise) will provide security for his
-----------
>	performance....and some places (Detroit?) apparently
>	require off-duty police as security guards.


	What kind of law is that?  It sounds like welfare for 
police at the expense of coliseum owners.   What kinds of other
similar laws are there and does anyone have details?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cwt@mitre.org (Carl Traber)
Subject: Re: Firearms article in Jan '93_The Atlantic_
Organization: Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 12:45:02 GMT

vtessier@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Vince Tessier) writes:

   dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams) writes:

   >-> as those involved in getting a driver's license.  As the laws are now
   >-> written, a blind man can buy a gun."

   > And why not?  As long as they're not mentally incompetent or a
   >convicted felon, any American adult can own a firearm, subject to local
   >laws.  A blind person might not be able to shoot at targets, but there's
   >no reason they can't buy or sell, collect, or just have one because they
   >want to.

   Certainly, why not?  A magazine writer (Ayoob, I think) recommends a 
   big-bore handgun loaded with blanks as a self-defense weapon for the
   blind.  Fine with me ... the victim can blast away, knowing he can't
   hurt anyone, while the perpetrator is wondering what the hell's going
   on, or is mightily surprised if he knows his victim is (supposedly)
   defenseless & unarmed.

Please be advised that you CAN get hurt with blanks.  Admittedly,
the range is short, but people have been killed fooling around with
a handgun loaded with "just blanks."

-- Carl Traber    cwt@shockley.mitre.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: The NRA has an image problem with gays
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:39:30 GMT


|Despite the posting originating in Australia, do not assume the poster is 
|an Ozzie.  This is an "anonymous posting service" accessible from anywhere
|on the network.  I don't even know that one exists in the US (the other I 
|know of is in Finland) so it's possible that anonymous tripe will ALWAYS
|carry an overseas postmark.

I believe berkeley has one...

Send the article to be posted to:

	ucbvax.berkeley.edu
	
	with the id of
	
	talk-politics-guns
	
(...!ucbvax.berkeley.edu!talk-politics-guns)

Haven't tried it recently though...

They probably have almost every newsgroup; just use a "-" where "."
normally appears e.g. rec.radio.amateur.misc becomes rec-radio-amateur-misc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 03:56:55 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <ARCHER.662.726428493@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <9301061637.45@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>       Besides, you were talking, as well, about checking peoplfor a 
>>>subjective psychological readiness for a gun.  Instant checks have been 
>>>instituted to check someone for a criminal record.  What happens it what 
>>>always happens when you try to control a commodity that people who don't 
>>>obey they law want.  They find a way around it.
>>
>>That's right.  I'm a criminal.  I steal your wallet and use your SS number
>>and other pertinent information to make myself an identity that will
>>allow me to pass the spot check.  The spot check is now worthless.
>
>WELL DONE!  Criminals can circumvent ANY gun control scheme you care to put 
>in place.

Except for one that requires taking of finger prints as a basis for
identification.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 11 Jan 1993 18:38:02 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <9301092158.51@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

> >|> >What does making that illegal have to do with keeping guns out of the
> >|> >hands of criminals ?  The illegal market for any good can supply almost
> >|> >anything if you have the money.  And criminals will spend the money to
> >|> >obtain the tools of their "trade."

> I'm getting confused here.  Why would a criminal spend say $1000 to buy a
> gun if the societal laws said that a gun store could sell that gun for $200
> to anyone who asked?

You make the common mistake of assuming that hot goods are always MORE
expensive than legal goods.  Kids are buying 9mm pistols in Boston schools
for $100 that I can't buy in the local store without shelling out about $400.
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: A new solution! (Was: Re: Dressed for Rape)
Date: 7 Jan 1993 18:44:59 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <9301061641.51@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

> >  I think you've got it!  Mass. should have a law that *every*
> >applicant for the FID (or whatever you call it) must first drive
> >to Montana and back, stopping in at least 3 houses of worship
> >on the way.
> 
> Wayne Lo didn't have an FID.  He was able to buy a gun in Mass under an
> act of law that allows "hospitality" to out of state visitors.

Absolutely right.  Then you say:

> And it is extremely easy to get an FID ( allows purchase of long guns and
> ammo ) unless you live in Boston.

So he didn't have one, but could have gotten one trivially if he had to.  
Still absolutely right.

So what's your point?
-- 

cdt@rocket.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: ghm@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Gun Control Examined  -  Melbourne Seminar, 1988
Keywords: Gun Control, RKBA Archives
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:26:37 GMT


GUN CONTROL EXAMINED

Papers presented at a Conference on Gun Control held at Melbourne
University-Union Theatre, 27-28 August, 1988.  The conference was
sponsored by the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia, but
not restricted to them, and the speakers were not all pro-gunners
preaching to the converted.

I have scanned in the six papers distributed in the Proceedings  -
a brief paper by a SSAA representative was not made available.
These papers are now available in the RKBA Archives (anonymous ftp
from

      archive.cis.ohio-state.edu:/pub/firearms/politics/rkba

with thanks to Larry Cipriani for the work he does on this, 
or e-mail me and I can send them to anyone interested.)

The authors whose papers are available are Don Kates, Bruce Danto
(both discussing the US experience), Colin Greenwood (former UK
policeman), David Fine (Australian legal academic, writing on 
the history of gun control measures in Australia) and Bob Badlands
(on the NZ experience).  The papers by both Fine and Badlands are
somewhat dated, since conditions in both Australia and NZ have
changed since 1988, but these papers provide an interesting insight
into the develoment of firearms legislation in these countries.

A brief biography of the presenter is appended to each paper.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: badlands.txt

New Zealand Firearms Control by Robert Badlands.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: danto.txt

Issues Regarding Gun Control in America by Bruce L. Danto

----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: fine.txt

Impediments to the Purposeful Reform of (Australian) Firearms Laws
	by J. D. Fine

----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: greenwd.txt

Untitled paper by Colin Greenwood, discussing the history of
firearms legislation in the UK

----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: kates.txt

Gun Control: Recent Research on the American Experience by Don B. Kates, Jr.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
File: marsden.txt

Gun Control: A Banker's Perspective, by John Marsden

Note, this paper is almost impossible to read currently as the original
would not scan well.  A more readable copy will be supplied later
(scanners permitting).

______________________________________________________________________
Geoff Miller  (g-miller@adfa.edu.au)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns