HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)
Subject: Re: Busted: Harry Connick Jr. in Illinois
Reply-To: fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)
Organization: Bell Communications Research (Bellcore)
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 16:41:39 GMT

If he was trying to bring it IN to the city it should not
have been noticed as bags are not xrayed coming in unless
you go through customs. Now if he did the "Honest" thing
and labeled it at his point of origin like you are supposed
to do then some one must have been waiting for him to claim
it. I wonder how many other people get screwed by law 
enforcement this way by personnel too lazy or "bad attitude"
types, the ones who dont make the paper or TV news.
If you are going hunting in Canada and you have to change
planes in NY can you get busted and do they have people 
looking for legitimate people with a legitmate reason for
having a gun (pro 2nd here). Nice place NYC, busting normal
people at airports (must be a donut counter near the baggage
pickup area) instead of being out on the streets.
-- 
##########################################################
There are only two types of ships in the NAVY; SUBMARINES 
                 and TARGETS !!!
#1/XS1100LH	#2/10/10/92
Richard Pierson E06584 vnet: [908] 699-6063
Internet: fist@iscp.bellcore.com,|| UUNET:uunet!bcr!fist  
#include <std.disclaimer> My opinions are my own!!!
I Don't shop in malls, I BUY my jeans, jackets and ammo
in the same store.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: Lawrence Mass.
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:32:43 GMT

In article <105573@bu.edu>, merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
|> 
|> I must admit that the anti-gun control people have pointed out 
|> flaws that I had not considered with restriction of availabilty
|> of firearms and ammunition. I do however feel that mail order
|> ammo is ridiculous.

Why?

|> 
|> Guns are not the only weapons that kill. 2 men have been killed
|> in the greater Boston area in the past month in traffic 
|> disputes where someone pulled a knife. 6 people have been
|> killed with guns in ambush style attacks with guns.
|> No guns are not the only weapons out there, but they
|> are by far the weapon of choice with criminals.

I am saying that you are wrong here but I would like to know where
you get your information. Also I am not sure why we should care
what their "weapon of choice" is. My concern is over what they
do than with what tool they use. It may well be that a car theifs
tool of choice is a narrow peice of sheet metal with a notch in the
end. Why do I care?

|> 
|> Still,being more Anarchist/Libertarian minded, goverment controls 
|> of any kind are diststaful to me.
|> 
|> So that leaves me with the Anarcho-Capitalist Enclave.
|> A place where you can lower probabilities of crime.
|> 
|> Consider what the Police in Lawrence Mass are doing now:
|> 
|> In a for 4 block area known for drug dealing and prostitution
|> they have "sealed off" the area. Residents are given "passes".
|> There are checkpoints where the police will ask to your
|> license and registartion, they give you a card explaining why
|> you were stopped and they record your licence plate number.
|> The first effect is on Suburbanites who come into the 
|> city to buy drugs or sex. Not activities you want veiwed
|> in the harsh light of day. The second is that the high visibilty
|> of the police has also reduced the number of people loitering
|> (of which might be drug dealers and prostitutes).

Zieg Heil! Zieg Heil! Zieg Heil!

|> It seems to be working. Streets where children dared not play
|> or old people dare not venture are now safe.

And all we give up is our liberty. What a deal.

|> 
|> It may not last:
|> The ACLU is taking legal action against the Lawrence Police.

Once in a while the ACLU gets it right. :-}

|> 
|> -sjm
|> 
|> -- 
|> Sean J. Merritt		         | "Every revolt is a cry of innocence    
|> Dept of Physics Boston University|  and an appeal to the essence of being."
|> merritt@macro.bu.edu             | Albert Camus, The Rebel

				mike
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mikepb@lupus.dell.com (Michael P. Brininstool)
Subject: Re: Merry Christmas
Reply-To: mikepb@lupus.dell.com
Organization: Dell UNIX Support
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:47:00 GMT

In article <LAMBERT.92Dec22034830@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>, lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
>>>>>> On 17 Dec 92 20:32:55 GMT, ljb@parkcity.dr.att.com (BLO54620-BonhamLJ(DR2194)240) said:
> 
>> The point I wish to make is that what one will not find when
>> perusing the news papers are any stories about crimes being foiled
>> by gun owning victims, despite the fact that the NIJ (Nat'l
>> Institute of Justice) estimates that between 600,000-900,000 crimes
>> are prevented or stopped each year in the U.S. by lawfully armed
>> citizens.  This out numbers by more than 3 to 1 the number of crimes
>> committed anually, with or with out firearms.  In other words, don't
>> believe everything in the papers.
> 
> And don't believe everything you read in this newsgroup.  According to
> the National Crime Survey, there are 80,000 crimes each year where
> guns are used in self-defence (not always successfully), and there are
> 800,000 crimes committed with guns each year in the US.  I'm not sure
> that the ratio (used against criminals)/(used by criminals) makes much
> sense, but it seems to run about 10 to 1 against the good guys.

Tim doesn't understand what is being said.  The 80,000 cases of defensive
gun use is what was reported.  I, personally have used my handgun
defensively three times in the past ten years.  Never has it been reported.
The estimated 600k-900k defensive gun uses are of this type, where because
of the gun, NOTHING happened.  Therefore, NOTHING was reported!

------------------------------++----------------------------------------------|
| #include "std/disclaimer.h" || MICHAEL P. BRININSTOOL mikepb@lupus.dell.com |
|-----------------------------++--------++------------------------------------|
| IF LIBERALS INTERPRETED THE 2ND       || "An armed society is a polite      |
| AMENDMENT, THE WAY THEY DO THE FIRST, ||  society!"  -- Heinlein            |
| CARRYING A GUN WOULD BE MANDATORY!    ||                                    |
|---------------------------------------++-------------------------------------
From: mikepb@lupus.dell.com (Michael P. Brininstool)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Lloyd Bentsen and ATF
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:33:43 GMT
Reply-To: mikepb@lupus.dell.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dell UNIX Support

In article <1h2f6lINNjsk@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>> 
>> A friend of mine recently pointed out that as Secretary of the Treasury
>> Lloyd Bentsen will be over the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and
>> therefore have some influence on the Clinton Administration's gun control
>> policies.  I have understood that Bentsen is pro-gun.  So is his presence
>> in this position likely to have any moderating impact of importance on
>> Clinton's policies?
>> Zz

I have called and written his office in the past when major legislation is
coming up.  He tends to be anti-gun in my book.  I don't care what the NRA
or anyone else thinks about him.  He thinks the ONLY legitimate reason for
owning a firearm is for hunting and he has definite ideas of what is a
hunting firearm and what is NOT!  He voted for the Brady Bill and has voted
FOR assault weapons bans.  He has a raging case of Potomac Fever.  I look
forward to his tenure in the Senate being over!  If we survive the next
four years, maybe he won't trouble us any more.  He probably will not run
again for the Senate.  He could do us MUCH harm!

------------------------------++----------------------------------------------|
| #include "std/disclaimer.h" || MICHAEL P. BRININSTOOL mikepb@lupus.dell.com |
|-----------------------------++--------++------------------------------------|
| IF LIBERALS INTERPRETED THE 2ND       || "An armed society is a polite      |
| AMENDMENT, THE WAY THEY DO THE FIRST, ||  society!"  -- Heinlein            |
| CARRYING A GUN WOULD BE MANDATORY!    ||                                    |
|---------------------------------------++-------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Bad cops - a perfect example
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 21:27:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.202924.18697@igor.tamri.com>
donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:

>In article <1992Dec21.220837.7652@cbfsb.cb.att.com> osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com
>(Mr. X) writes:
>>>That whole discussion on rec.guns turns my stomach.  I should not have to
>>>worry about being shot by a supposed law enforcement officer for openning
>>>my glove box or getting out of my car after being pulled over.  IMHO, it
>>>just supports my contention that on a daily basis, I am in more danger from
>>>cops than any other group, and that situation is only getting worse.
>>
>>	You bet.  Cops are, by and large, out of control.  Look at the King
>>	incident.  Sure, King was a piece of shit, and I do believe those
>>	guys were indeed justified in whacking him to get him under control,
>>	but after he was CLEARLY neutralized, they kept on and on with the
>>	bludgeoning attacks on his person.  And to make it worse, they were
>>	basically patted on the back for it.  I think they should all be in
>>	Folsom, getting butt fucked by every African American in the place
>>	that would be so inclined (or anyone else for that matter).
>
>Hmmm.  I don't think that most cops are out of control.  Unfortunately, a
>lot of them are but I think its unfair to over-generalize.

         The problem really isn't which cops are, and which cops aren't,
out of control.  The problem is that when cops *do* go out of control
there is virtually no check on them.  And the ones that are under control
can go out of control without any warning.

>All my
>experiences with police officers have been polite, cordial even...but then
>I'm a white male who has only been pulled over for traffic violations
>(1 speeding stop (no ticket was issued) and a handful of equipment violations
>when I was younger).

        I was stopped, ticketed, and had to pay for something I didn't
do.  I have very little but contempt for the system that told me
to my face, in court, under oath that it thought I was a liar.
Apparently unlike most of our law enforcement and political
personnell, I take my oaths seriously.

>Some cops do unacceptable things, such as confiscate peoples' property
>(including legally owned firearms), damage property and bully people.

       This, alone, is not the problem.  The problem is that they
are issued orders to do so.  They aren't held responsible because
they were only following order, and the people who issued the orders
aren't responsible, because they didn't commit the action.  Split
the blame so that nobody gets blamed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: priceje@cs.aston.ac.uk (Jason Price)
Subject: Re: Gun Control generally (from Knee Jerks
Reply-To: priceje@cs.aston.ac.uk
Organization: Aston University (Comp Sci)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:46:09 GMT

In article 1889@tnc.UUCP, m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY) writes:
>
>Concerning 'Rational' Gun Control in England:
>
>Oh yes, Merrie Olde England, the country that had it's prime minister
>beg us for weapons when the Germans were threatening to do to them
>what they had already done to France.
>
>Seems to me that the lesson failed to take hold yet again.
>
>Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-A  LPVa NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E"
>Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia
>Send e-mail for an application and more information
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>"...I am opposed to all attempts to license or restrict the arming of
>individuals...I consider such laws a violation of civil liberty, 
>subversive of democratic political institutions, and self-defeating
>in their purpose."
>        - Robert Heinlein, in a 1949 letter concerning "Red Planet"
>-- 
>The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
>703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.


Do you have a serious point to make, or would you just like to hurl abuse??
I don't think a discussion on the war record of the US is particularly constructive
here do you??

Jason.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
priceje@cs.aston.ac.uk	| "I have something to say...
Aston University,	|  it's better to burn out than to fade away"
Birmingham, U.K.	|  	 - Kurgen, (Highlander)
From: bb063@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher J. Crobaugh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: re: Guns & Age
Date: 21 Dec 1992 11:42:37 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


IN a message above, chrispy@hardy.u.washington.edu (Chris Prince)
notes that the 21 yr requirement for handgun purchase is 
ridiculous. True. I suggested to him via Email that he procure and
read "NAZI GUN CONTROL" by Aaron Zelman and Jay Simkin, of the
Jews for the PReservation of Firearms Ownership. One will find,
for instance, that the whole concept of "handgun Control" and 
"Sporting Purpose" BOTH come from the NAZI law. How interesting.
-- 
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: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)
Subject: Re: For gun control? No not really.
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:31:19 GMT

>If so, forget about even the large, expensive guns.  You can't own any
>guns or ammunition AT ALL.  That's because we allowed some people (school
>administrations) to "create communities where they COULD control guns and
>their use."  They're called campuses, and your right to keep and bear arms 
>doesn't apply on any of them, by force of Massachusetts law.

Unless you have WRITTEN PERMISSION from school officials authorizing 
posession of firearms on campus (subject to all other state & federal
laws which apply).

According to BU Presdient John Silber's stepson, one civilian individual 
at Boston University has such permission.  Care to guess who?  Care to 
guess what chance other members of the campus community with carry permits 
have of getting similar permission?

>
>Yes, it's the very same Massachusetts law that kept Simon's Rock College 
>of Bard such a "sane and safe environment."
>

                                        rob b.
                                        rboudrie@chpc.org
From: post@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (David Post)
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 23:01:35 GMT
Subject: Re: Fight the bastards (was Re: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

In talk.politics.guns, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

 >I believe there is some benefit in determining if a person is
 >psychologically able to take on the responsibility of owning
 >a handgun.

Please consider the following questions seriously.  It is my attempt to
to understand whether what you advocate has a chance at success.


What criteria would you use?

How would you obtain the data you need to make a decision?  

How fast could you get the relevant information?  

What training or qualifications do you need to make a decision?  

What would be the probability of making the wrong decision?  

If you make the wrong decision, what would your responsibility be?

===============
Keep in mind that the wrong decision could be to deny as well as allow.
Either way, lives could be in jeopardy.

David Post  davep@hpfcpp.fc.hp.com  hplabs!hpfcla!post
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.drugs
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Here's the problem
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 06:56:14 GMT

In article <1h8trtINNdam@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bz269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James D. Del Vecchio) writes:
}
}In a previous article, shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) says:
}
}>>Yeah, I suppose that is because we have declared "WAR ON DRUGS", and have
}>>yet to declare war on GUNS.			   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
}^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
}>Earth to Randy, Earth to Randy come in!
}>Is this a joke or have you been residing on Mars or something. The war
}>on guns has been going on since before I was born!


Yes, but has it been declared?

}   I was watching C-SPAN last year and Sen Joe "Stalin/Hitler" Biden was 
}ranting about gun control and the WOD, and he accidntaly said "we've go to 
}push harder to win the War on Guns, er, I mean War on DRUGS, excuse me."

Close, but not quite a declaration, eh:-)?


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
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Sunday, 3 Jan 1993 14:11:02 MST
From: Shooting Club at ASU <GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Distribution: usa
 <9212311249.09@rmkhome.UUCP> <1993Jan1.003233.6757@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
 <0tsrqk_@dixie.com>


andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>In article <9212311249.09@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>What most people in this thread want is the right for anyone to just
>>walk into Fred's Gun Store, plunk down the money, and walk out with
>>the gun and ammo of choice.

>Since there don't seem to be any benefits to policies other than that,
>what's so unreasonable about it?

Yup.

>>I maintain that I wouldn't want to live in a state like that, as it
>>would rapidly turn into a scenario like Beirut.

  You're wrong Rick, any documentation to support the Beirut scene ?

  You'll find plenty of evidence on this bbs supporting the armed
  society in the USA as a peaceful society.  Keep reading.

  Rick would probably not be comfortable in Arizona.
  Discounting the recent hysterical flurry of unConstitutional (both
  Arizona and the Federal) laws here, fall-out from the elections; one
  may purchase and carry a handgun almost anywhere in Arizona.  The
  only major infringement is our 'concealed holster' regulation,
  both while transporting in your vehicle, or for personal carrying.

  The only government agency involved in marksmanship and firearm
  safety is the Arizona Game and Fish Department, otherwise you
  take advantage of secondary and collegiate, Scout, etc. clubs
  or ranges offerings.  The decision to gun-proof your kids, or be your
  own best friend is purely personal, just like your First Amendment
  rights.

  Women and men both are aware of this and that when they dress in Arizona.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: BATF 800 Number
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:21:10 GMT

In article <C02xJ2.D63@NCoast.ORG> cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton) writes:
>
>
>Could somebody be so kind as to post or e-mail me BATF's 800 number?  I 
>know somebody who'd actually like to turn in a CRIMINAL using it, but I
>don't have it handy.  I'd like to get this ASAP, as the person in question
>is in fact apparently dangerous.  From what I'm told, he should appeal to
>BATF's interests in a number of ways.
>
>Let's see if they're as zealous in harrassing CRIMINALS....

The "turn in a 'scumbag' number" is 1-800-ATF-GUNS
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Shooting License
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 06:11:28 GMT

mcgoy@unicorn.acs.ttu.edu (David McGaughey) writes:

>I think that it is time that the states require a shooting license.

	You mean like the card that says I'm a safe hunter?

>Most states already require the safest gun users to have a license for
>the use of a gun in the safest of uses:  hunting with the hunter safety
>card.  Let's educate the idiots who use guns unsafely.

	By all means.  Note that I can hunt tresspassers without this
card.  Note also that I not only drove on public roads and highways, I
drove everything from semi-trailer rigs to standard heavy equipment
without even a drivers license.  No accidents in either situation,
and all perfectly legal.

	Frankly, it's rather ripe for abuse, and that scares me.  It
is, in the end, not for my safety, but for state coffers.

	This does bring about an interesting question, though.  I own
property.  If I'm hunting on that property and am stopped by the game
warden, can I prosecute him with tresspassing when he prosecutes me
with hunting without the card, let's say?  I wonder what he might use
as "probable cause," or if it's just ignored in these cases?

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >
From: csjohn@knuth.mtsu.edu (J Wallace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Busted: Harry Connick Jr. in Illinois
Date: 30 Dec 1992 09:29:55 -0600
Organization: Dept of Comp Science, Middle Tenn State Univ, Murfreesboro, TN
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: knuth.mtsu.edu

In <4230@eastman.UUCP> (MJ) writes:

>#Harry Connick Jr. getting arrested ... trying to bring an unloaded 9mm
>pistol #... JFK airport in New York City, according to CNN.

>>  I was trying to figure out what license she was talking
>> about - NYC or NY state, I would think.

>>   - Les Johnson  (les@ulysses.att.com) 1+908-582-5493
>>        "One Bell System - It Works"

>NY State law, loaded or unloaded, mandatory 1 year in the crowbar hotel. 
>Course, I believe Bernie Geotz was the only one to serve time on that law
>alone.
>NYC laws will compound this. Transport of handguns acquired out of state of
>residence without a dealer's license (FFL) is a federal no-no.  And any

Are you absolutely sure about this?  
I thought this only applied to class 3 weapons.

>attempt to bring a firearm past the airport detectors/US Marshals gets a
>lot of attention.  It's a good thing Ol' Harry earns a livin' with his
>voice cause I doubt he could do it with his bean.

>MJ

You're right about that.  It's unbelievable that anyone with half a
bean would even consider it.

-- 
John Wallace   ||   INTERNET: csjohn@knuth.mtsu.edu
> > We have just the government that we deserve < <