HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Brady bill decoupled from Crime Bill
From: ehorne@zeus.calpoly.edu (Eric T Horne)
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1992 02:15:59 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

In article <1992Sep30.184421.22878@SSD.intel.com> hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
>
>Apparently, the Brady bill (no telling what version) has been decoupled from the
>Crime Bill, and there is an attempt underway to force a vote in the Senate by
>October 3rd.
>
>If the Senate version (very Staggers-like) passes, then the Joint Conference must
>reconcile the differences.  Typically, in the past, this has resulted in the
>*worst* of both bills being put into the final version, wrt gun control.
>
>Today would be a very good day to call your Senators at (202) 224-3121 and
>register your opposition to any form of the Brady Bill.
>

  I was wondering if anyone had the EXACT wording of the bill. If so,
  could you please send it to me via email (ehorne@polyslo.calpoly.edu).
  Otherwise, if you know where I could get it, that would do just fine.

  Thanks

  -Eric
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: NSW homicides
Organization: none
	<1992Sep22.224829.13896@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<LAMBERT.92Sep24020241@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<1992Sep25.060653.14099@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 1 Oct 92 02:13:48

On 25 Sep 92 06:06:53 GMT, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) said:

> In article <LAMBERT.92Sep24020241@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au> lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
>>>>Wrong.  My model has two parameters (pre 1920 rate, post 1920 rate).

> The third parameter is the year at which the change occured (1920). 

Is it your contention that I could have picked 1915 as the year in
which the change occured if that gave a better fit?

In my goodness of fit calculation I used 19 degrees of freedom (21
data values less two fitted parameters) in the Chi square statistic.
Should I have use 18 df?

Tim
From: pdg@crosfield.co.uk (paul goffin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Armed bobbies in England
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:20:10 GMT
Organization: Crosfield Electronics, Hemel Hempstead, United Kingdom.

In article <viking.717539111@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
#alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:
#>Everyone knows that many English police officers ("bobbies") are
#>generally unarmed.  And everyone knows that the police have special
#>teams of armed officers who respond to situations calling for lethal
#>force.

#>It seems that these special teams are required by law to identify
#>themselves by shouting "armed police!" rather than just "police!"
#>when they encounter a suspect.

Only when they are pointing a gun at an armed (or believed to be
armed) suspect.  BTW these armed police usually use H&K carbines
now, so the guns are pretty easy to spot.

#have a slightly different question, though, that I hope can be
#answered in the same thread.  Whenever I see a movie or TV show that
#was shot in Britain, the bobby (isn't that what they're called?)
#pulls and blows a whistle while running off to chase down the Bad Guy.

#	Of what use is a whistle?  A loud "Tweet!" doesn't appear to
#be for much more than alerting other bobbies that a suspect is
#afoot and quite probably running.  So, what is the number of bobbies
#per square block, or per 50 meters, in London versus in New York?

That's funny, whenever I see a film shot in the US, the cops are
chasing people who are illegaly supplying alcohol.  When are
you guys going to repeal those laws?  Oh, you have, oh sorry,
I must have been watching an old film then ;-)

Our police all carry radios, we have "instant response" armed
teams (often a particular patrol car has a gun safe in the boot
(trunk)), helicopter patrols etc.....

Paul
-- 
+-------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
+ Paul Goffin +  Crosfield Electronics Ltd. U.K.  +44 442 230000x3357 +
+             +  Opinions expressed are mine! (Yours for a small fee) +
+-------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: Clinton Joins Arkansas Police Criticism of Bush For Blocking Brady Bill
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:00:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.150910.3688@news.yale.edu> watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt) writes:
>

>
>In Connecticut, the standard form asks your reasons for wanting a permit,
>but the governing statues do not enumerate permissible reasons.  If you
>answered something like "so I can rob banks", the denial would no doubt
>be upheld.  I do know of one person who answered "to exercise my constitutional
>right to keep and bear arms" (wish I'd thought of that).


That's what I put on my permit application.  Came back in 10 days too.
Of course, the constitution of the State of Indiana guarantees me the
right to keep and bear arms, and the state government seems to be
doing a good job upholding that.

-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Mayor of Dogspit, IN  #My Opinions! NotIU's! #Purveyor of
EMT-D         # Located somewhere in  # Legalize Explosives! #nontraditional
N9ISY (tech)  # the Outback of the    #I've got my own fusion#family values
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over#plant. Just ask me.   #Space For Rent
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Perot
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:48:55 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?
> 
> ProLine:  rsopicki@pro-amber
> Internet: rsopicki@pro-amber.cts.com
> UUCP:     crash!pro-amber!rsopicki

As far as I know he's all for it.
--Ray Cote
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: California gun laws
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 04:11:07 GMT

In article <6830@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>What, you mean in California it was generally expected that if the
>state required a safety course, the state had to provide it?
>
>Gee, Massachusetts could teach THEM something.  Here, they require
>a safety course, and YOU have to pay for it yourself!

With all due respect to the People Republic of Massachusetts, I think the
California approach is far more effective in its objectives: keeping guns
out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

I suspect that this one may have to be resolved in the courts as I can imagine
no reason, whatsoever (other than raw political pressure) that could cause
the gun grabbers in Sacramento to fix the situation they "accidentally"
created.

This, though, will ultimately come back to haunt the gun grabbers. Now anytime
such "reasonable" restrictions are proposed, California will be cited as a
real life (as opposed to hypothetical) example of the ease with which such
laws can be abused by corrupt politicians.

From: ron@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ron Miller)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:28:04 GMT
Subject: Re: Clinton Joins Arkansas Police Criticism of Bush For Blocking Brady Bill
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

> From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
> 
> In article <8110284@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, ron@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ron Miller) writes:
> > 
> > If the blue suits spend any time hurrying thru an application for 
> > a firearm I consider it a waste of tapayers money to simply move
> > up a deadline.
> >
> > I'm sure very few municipalities would spend money this way.
> 
> I really don't understand your objection.  You seem to be confusing
> response time with throughput.  If the chief can't find time to do

Sorry, I wasn't writing very clearly. 

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

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Carol Moseley Braun Opponent is NRA "A" rated
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:13:25 GMT
Keywords: Rich Williamson, Senator, Illinois


According to the latest American Rifleman/Hunter, Rich Williamson
is "A" rated by NRA, and the latest Guns & Ammo ammo points out this
Senate race as having special significance because of the vast
difference of positions on RKBA issues.

The front of the Chicago Tribune today has a chart showing that Carol
Braun's support among voters has plummeted beneath the 50% level, 
undoubtedly due to tax difficulties involving her mother.

Williamson's campaign needs help to take advantage of this situation,
as quite a significant percentage of potential voters haven't heard
of Braun's questionable lawyering involving her relatives.

========================================================================

Subject: Carol Moseley Braun endorsed by HCI

Well, the local/national news media darling Democratic Senatorial
candidate Carol Moseley Braun comes out squarely in favor of destroying
the RKBA, endorsed by none other than Mr. Brady himself:

		JAMES BRADY endorses Braun
		
		Former Reagan administration White House Press
		Secretary James Brady on Monday receives the C. Everett
		Koop Health Advocate Award from the American Society
		for Health Care Marketing at the Hyatt Regency. Brady
		pushed for passage of a federal handgun control law
		and endorsed Democratic Senatorial candidate Carol
		Moseley Braun during a visit to Chicago. "Because of
		political grandstanding, the Brady Bill has been held
		hostage to a crime bill, which has been stalled for
		nine months," Brady said. 
		
		[Chicago Tribune Evening Update, Sept. 14, 1992]
		
The Republican Senatorial campaign by candidate Rich Williamson is
handicapped by a drastic lack of funds [Ms. Braun's campaign is
receiving donations around the country, as well as quite ample
news media coverage.], and is in need of VOLUNTEERS as well. According
to the NRA, Rich Williamson is definitely the PRO-GUN vote in the
election.

If Ms. Braun is not defeated in the general election in November, you
can count on Illinois reelecting her again and AGAIN to the Senate,
making her a sure-fire 100% Handgun Control Inc. supporter. This means
into the 21st century Carol Moseley Braun will vote like Sens. Simon/
Kennedy/Metzenbaum/et al., and gun owners voices will be muted for
decades. To the victors go the spoils, and HCI will cheer loudly and
mightily for such a victory.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contact to contribute whatever you can:

		Rich Williamson for U.S. Senate
		29 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1192
		Chicago, Illinois 60603
		
		312/641-1992

If you can't help directly, see if you can persuade interested parties.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jeffw@or.credence.com (Jeff Winslow)
Subject: Re: Full-Auto 22s manufactured by Drug-Crazed DEATH SQUADS in GLASGOW
Organization: Credence Systems Corp. Beaverton, OR
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:11:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.191133.10792@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.004410.15593@credence.com> jeffw@or.credence.com (Jeff Winslow) writes:
|>>"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street
|>>with no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US
|>>murders are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"  
|>>-  Andrew Ford
|>
|>The ones who don't realize "the other half of the country" has 80% of the
|>population.
|>
|>Not literally true, but close enough to expose the trick.
|
|Not literally true?  You mean that the other half of the country has
|less than 80% of the population, that the other half has a
|disproportionate number of murders?

I mean that the "other half of the country" has a population a lot closer
to 80% than to 50%. I don't know about you, but when I want to advocate
something I try not to strain my credibility that much. Note that, contrary
to what some people here assumed, I don't advocate one thing or another
with respect to firearms, except maybe make for damn sure you use them wisely.

|At best, the restrictions provide no benefit....

That may well be. That's irrelevant to the question of whether the statistics
above have been abused.

							Jeff Winslow
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,misc.legal
From: jdw@unislc.uucp (James Warren)
Subject: Re: Leonard Levy, "Original Intent", etc.
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:15:16 GMT

From article <1992Oct6.152435.15187@eff.org>, by mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin):
> In article <1992Oct5.221030.22369@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) writes:
> 
>>What did the American public think of the Second Amendment at the time of
>>its ratification?  Did they think it protected members of an organized
>>militia only, and that the state could decline to organize such a militia
>>and render the Second Amendment of no consequence? Or did they understand
>>it to protect individuals who might or might not ever be called upon to
>>serve actively in a militia?
> 
> Well, it should be noted that if the original understanding of the Second
> Amendment was *not* to reserve a right to individuals, the word "people"
> in the Second Amendment means something far different from the word
> "people" in the First Amendment.
> 

What makes you think that they meant different things each time they used
the word "people"?  Was it the same with all words, or only that one?
Was you there, did someone tell you this, or did you just make it up?  If
you ever need work, the news media is always looking for someone who can
come up with this s*!t on the fly.  (Did you at least smile as you wrote
this?)
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Cause and effect - (Was Re: Freaks And Self-Defense)
Date: 1 Oct 1992 19:27:00 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <1992Oct1.120227.17988@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>In article <1aebi9INNsih@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cc697@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Eric Oppen) writes:
>> ...
>>At historical-reenactment get-togethers such as the buckskinner rendezvous
>>I mentioned, admittedly, most of the arms on site are black-powder...but
>>they are still live, lethal firearms.  And I have never heard of anybody
>>running amuck at such an event.
>
>  Black-powder is OK, because the writers of the Constitution and
>the Bill of Rights knew about black-powder.  It is the modern, evil
>"assault" powder - *smokeless* powder that is responsible for clouding
>the mind, for people running amuck and for the destruction of the
>ozone layer.

And rain forests.

Don't forget the rain forests.






















--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Brady Bill squashed and other news
Keywords: Brady, Good riddance
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:28:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department

In article <69816@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox) writes:
>I flipped on C-SPAN the other night and according to Joe Biden,
>the only important part of the Crime Bill was the Brady Bill, and
>that the whole reason it was being held up was Republican rejection
>of "reasonable and sensible gun control" (I'm *really* sick of that
>phrase) and the NRA "gun lobby". I only wish the NRA were as devious
>and effective as Joe thinks, or the Republicans as loyal. It was
>a darn close call from where I sit.

We had an up or down, recorded vote on a gun control bill that had little
of importance outside of gun control.  The Republicans killed it.  That
seems to fit the criteria I asked for recently concerning the supposed
lack of difference between the parties.

As for it being close, of course it was.  Take 40 or so of the 57 pinkos
from the Democratic Party, add in a couple of Republican pinkos like John
Chafee of Rhode Island and the eunuchs from Oregon, and it is a close one.
But, a bill as described would have been vetoed, and the pinkos were not
even close to 67 votes so they could override it, were they?

>I have mixed emotions. Newt Gingrich for instance is a good
>voter on gun issues, but this is the same doofus who viciously
>attacked his fellow congressmen over the house banking thing and
>then turned out to have bounced more than a few himself.
>Single-issue voting is not necessarily a Good Thing (tm).


Wasn't Newt Gingrich the one who criticized the NRA publicly about the
original Brady/Staggers votes a couple of years ago, saying that the NRA
needs to find some way to work with all these police organizations that
favored the Brady Bill? He might have voted the right way, but he is an
appeaser at heart who must be reminded by NRA constituents how to vote.
And if he thinks the police organizations endorsements are significant,
the guy doesn't have a clue.


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is seldom that any liberty is lost all at once." David Hume
|||  clc5q@virginia.edu (Clark L. Coleman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Bush's position statement on RKBA (pretty sad!!!)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 17:27:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.182521.12341@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>>The Bush Administration has also taken action to address the
>>problems associated with "assault weapons" which are illegal for
>                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^            ^^^^^^^
>>hunting and unnecessary for legitimate self-defense, but which
>>are used by criminals to "spray" an area with gunfire.  These
>                           ^^^^^

>  OK - what kind of gun is this supposed to be:  fully-automatic
>or semi-automatic?  It is clear to me that this implies full-auto
>guns, since semi-autos are legal for essentially all hunting.

I think .223 Rem is illegal to hunt with in several states. Although
I doubt Bush was refering to semi-autos chambered to .223...

>The use of "spray" reinforces this interpretation (although it
>is often used by ignorant people to refer to semi-autos.)

The essence of the use is not ignorance, but rhetoric: Banning guns
that "spray" sounds reasonable (since people get confused and
imagine full autos), but the phrase is vague enough that politicians
can then ban semi-autos and claim public support.

                                       Frank Crary
                                       CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: clc5q@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman)
Subject: No Difference Between the Parties, Part 3
Originator: clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:15:29 GMT


Refer to previous postings for an explanation of the ratings.

Here is a summary by party of the GOA ratings of all House of Representatives
candidates in the 1992 elections:


Rating       Republicans    Democrats    Total
------       -----------    ---------    -----
A+                 4            4           8
A                 72           20          92
A-                76           25         101

B+                16           27          43
B                 33           18          51
B-                14           10          24

C+                 6            4          10
C                 13            6          19
C-                 7            2           9

D+                 1            2           3
D                  5           10          15
D-                 6           12          18

F+                 4            5           9
F                 14           36          50
F-                 4           76          80

NR                67          100         167


Total of A+, A, A- :  152 Republicans,  49 Democrats.
Total of F+, F, F- :   22 Republicans, 117 Democrats.
Total of D+, D, D- :   12 Republicans,  24 Democrats.



Seems to be a difference between the parties.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is seldom that any liberty is lost all at once." David Hume
|||  clc5q@virginia.edu (Clark L. Coleman)
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: Privileges and Rights. (was: Re: GORE...)
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:32:12 GMT

In <1992Sep26.222940.17044@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>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'm not sure it's not still arguable, but that argument *is* pretty easy
to refute: a "Right to Travel" is not being restricted in the least, you're
welcome to travel wherever you wish.  On your feet.  It's the privilege
of operating a vehicle on public property (all eight words important to
the point) that is being governed.

(It *might* be arguable that you can't travel without a vehicle these
days, but I don't think it'll hold up.  (They don't even build sidewalks
most areas of Southern California...talk about culture shock when I moved
down here.))


-- 
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: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: Re: A little on self defense (what should I carry ?)
Organization: Twilight Zone
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:23:58 GMT


	Personally, I'd LOVE to custon order a 50 "D" cell Maglite and go a
	strollin' down the street with it and see what the asshole cops thought
	of that.  I'm sure I'd wind up in the hoosegow pronto.  Could you
	IMAGINE the press??  "Man with deadly *50* cell flashlight terrorizes
	downtown neighborhood..."

	Hate to say it, but Illinois sounds like one SORRY fucking hole in the
	wall to me.  Even New Jersey ain't *that* bad.  You have my sincerest
	sympathy.

	-Andy V.
From: John C. Mallery <jcma@ai.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: MAC Hypercard Stack of Clinton-Gore Position Papers and Speeches
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:38:43 GMT

A MAC Hypercard Stack of Clinton-Gore Position Papers and Speeches is
now available. If you would like a copy (800K / 1 disk), please send a
note to Michael (msagosta@cs.unlv.edu), who along with JBLIII authored
the Mac stack.

John Mallery
Join the Clinton/Gore '92
         Volunteer Email Campaign
Send To: CLINTON-WINS@Mail.Clinton-Gore.ORG
Subject: Volunteer Info