HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Wednesday, 26 Aug 1992 16:20:32 EDT
Reply-To: bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu
From: <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>
Distribution: usa
Followups-to: talk.politics.guns
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.culture.usa,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Minolta CEO attacks US Second Amendment


Sam Kusumoto, chairman and CEO of Minolta Corporation is quoted
in  _The Clarion-Ledger_ of Jackson, Miss., as follows,
according to a story by Dan Davis:


     "We don't know why the American government still
      permits people to possess a gun. The country that
      teaches Western civilization to Japanese still
      permits people to carry guns. This we do not
      understand."


Geez, Sam, welcome to the ranks of Japanese-Businessmen-
Caught-With-Foot-in-Mouth.

I'll remember your comments next time I'm shopping for any
product made by Minolta. Personally, I think you may still
have a bit left to learn about "Western civilization".


W. K. Gorman
NRA Life
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:20084 talk.abortion:33350
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 25 Aug 92 16:37:19 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <1992Aug24.042217.8225@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org
(Kevin Darcy) writes:
>That is the only reasonable reading of it which doesn't turn the clause into
>idle chit-chat. If we adopt the NRA interpretation, then the 2nd becomes no
>better than
>
>	The birds singing, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
>	shall not be infringed.
>
>	My aunt has malaria, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
>	shall not be infringed.
>
>	VM/CMS sucks, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
>	not be infringed.
>
>	(etc.)
>
>I for one refuse to accept that the founding fathers simply "padded" the
>2nd Amendment in this way. Is it your contention that they were trying to
>avoid a page break, perchance?

No, they were trying to reconcile the constitutions of the states
then in existence.

>Like I said, I have no particular qualms with a Universal RKBA. Pass one if
>you want. I just don't think you can squeeze one out of the 2nd. It's just
>too big a stretch of statutory contruction...

It says that people have the right to keep and bear arms.  Is there
some part of that concept you don't understand?

   don
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.culture.french
From: dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James Dusek)
Subject: Re: (was): Guns, and the necessity to trust (French bashing)
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:50:16 GMT

mf0w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michel Fougeres) writes:
>This number of 2 millions is absurdly high, it is pure wishful thinking

	"Wishful thinking"!! Nobody whishfully thinks two million dead.
It is a mistake, but you do not help by insulting the poster on it.

>!  (But you should count about half a million Jews rounded up by the
>VERY FRENCH OOOOHHH SO VERY FRENCH PATRIOTIC POLICE and GENDARMES and
>sold to the Germans for a few francs -- after which the Germans of
>course sent them (sent those Jews) to death camps.)

	Where are your sources for this? And why post it in this 
manner? To my knowledge the SS was responsible for rounding up
jewish peole. Not the Police. And if a FEW police/gendarmes did
round up jewish people for the germans than they were traitor
not patroits.

James
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely)
Subject: Re: ICLU Commission on the 2nd Amendment and Gun Control
Originator: jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu
Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science
	<17ujqhINNdnc@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:01:31 GMT

In article <17ujqhINNdnc@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu
 (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <81600@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>>A good source for some of the original wordings and discussions on
>>the Bill of Rights is H. Veit, K. Bowling, and C. Bickford, Creating
>>the Bill of Rights, Baltimore: the Johns Hopkins Press, 1991.

>A better source is the Congressional records themselves.

Actually, CtBoR contains those records, as well as numerous letters
back and forth.  I'm the one who recommended it to Mr. Wojcik, and
it's an excellent book.  The full reference is:
        Creating the Bill of Rights
        The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress
        edited by Helen E. Veit, Kenneth R. Bowling, and
                Charlene Bangs Bickford
        Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991.
        ISBN 0-8018-4099-6, 0-8018-4100-3 (pbk.)        


			The condition upon which God hath given
			liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which
			condition if he break, servitude is at once
			the consequence of his crime, and the
			punishment of his guilt.
				-- John Philpot Curran, 10 July 1790
-- 
J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
From: blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:51:44 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <1992Aug24.042217.8225@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <archer.200@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul28.031212.26812@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>
>>
>>>Agreed. I think there's an excellent 9th/14th Amendment case to be made for
>>>the RKBA. I just don't think the 2nd succeeds in doing so _ipso facto_.
>>
>>Read it again:  the dependant clause is NOT restrictive.  
>
>That is the only reasonable reading of it which doesn't turn the clause into
>idle chit-chat. If we adopt the NRA interpretation, then the 2nd becomes no
>better than
>
>	The birds singing, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
>	shall not be infringed.
>
>	My aunt has malaria, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
>	shall not be infringed.
>
>	VM/CMS sucks, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
>	not be infringed.
>
>	(etc.)
>
>I for one refuse to accept that the founding fathers simply "padded" the
>2nd Amendment in this way. Is it your contention that they were trying to
>avoid a page break, perchance?

"Padded"?  No, it is one reason for the assertion following.

I could have also been said:

	The average homeowner, for proper home defence, the right of the 
	people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

	For hunting purposes, necessary for proper conservation, the right
	of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

	Crime-riddled streets, endangering the free State, the right of the
	people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What it says is that a well-regulated militia (a group of citizens on their
own free time, such as the rod and gun club), being necessary for a free
State (necessary for the freedom of the entire country, composed of 
individuals), the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

Read the articles availble on the ftp site:

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


-- 
************************************************************************
Thaddeus Krag Blayda blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu, v063j3h4@ubvms.buffalo.edu
# Caution : DANGER #  This Country is at critical mass.
Vote Libertarian in '92!  Vote Marrou/Lord!  Vote to have your freedom back.
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment Myths
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:51:20 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <81757@bcsaic.boeing.com>, rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:

I can't believe that the same person who said THIS:

> Here is a suggestion for those who wish to uncover evidence.  (Lack of
> evidence is no proof one way or the other.)

also said THIS:

> It doesn't look
> like now, even with an extremely conservative court, that they are 
> willing to uphold the "personal right" doctrine, although there have been
> times in the past when they made noises in that direction. 

Throw out the existing evidence, because it is "too old," and use the
current LACK of rulings as evidence, huh?  Intellectual bankruptcy.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: laird@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Time to Fight
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:49:52 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

Anyone catch the recent news story about the family victimized in
their home by two guys pretending to be police officers.  They (the
"officers") were complete with uniforms and handguns.

--kyler
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment Myths
Date: 1 Sep 1992 17:09:32 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: lightning.berkeley.edu

In article <81628@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>Despite a direct challenge that people come up with counterevidence to (1)
>[a collective, state-organized militia interpertation], nobody
>has.  This does not mean that the contrary claim will not be made over and over
>and over again in this newsgroup.  Only that that claim remains unusupported now
>and probably will remain unsupported in the future.

You cannot simply reject all views you disagree with, by calling them
"unsupported." 

Just yesterday, I supported this view with several points, which you
need to at least consider before rejecting. How, specifically, do you
reconsile your interpertation with:

Federal control of the militia (as per Article One, Section Eight of
the Constitution and the federal Militia Act of 1792 and Presser v.
Illinois 116 US 252.) This is in conflict with your
concept of a state-run militia. If, as these documents
would suggest, the states do not have a free hand in arming and training
militias then the Second Amendment cannot refer to a state power.

By federal law (Title X), Supreme Court rulings (Presser v. Illinois and
US v. Miller 307 US 174) and the stated views of the framers (A. Hamilton,
G. Mason, R. H. Lee, etc..) the "militia" includes all citizens 
who are physically able. This makes a "collective" interpertation almost
meaningless: I am a member of the militia, by federal law, so the
Second Amednment protects my right to keep and bear arms (in my capacity
as a member of the militia.)

Finally, every Supreme Court ruling to even _mention_ the Second Amendment
has treated it as an individual right. Specifically Scott v. Sanford 60 US
1857, US v. Cruikshank 95 US 542, Presser v. Illinois 116 US 252, Miller
v. Texas 153 US 535, Patsonne v. Pennsylvania (no cite handy, ruling in 
1914), US v. Miller 307 US 174 and US v. Verdugo-Urquidez (no cite handy,
ruling in 1990.) 

Until you can address these issues, I don't think you have any casue to
call the individual rights interpertation "unsupported." Can you even
cite a _single_ Supreme Court ruling that treated the Second Amendment
as grant of powers to the states, as opposed to a protection of an
individual's right?

>The problem with (2) is that it seems so counterintuitive.  Do the courts really
>have the power to change or reverse the original intentions of lawmakers?  The
>answer is more complex than yes or no.

When the original intent is clear and supported by case law, they do not.
Even the defenders of judicial activism concede this. As I have show
above, original intent is reasonably clear and supported overwelmingly
by case law.

                                                Frank Crary
						CU Boulder
						fcrary@pprince.COlorado.EDU
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:20199 talk.abortion:33651 alt.flame:12360
From: trashman@crud.mn.org (Barry Schwartz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:26:00 GMT
Followup-To: alt.kebbie.bang.bang.bang
Organization: TSAKC-TC

In article <1992Aug24.044300.8415@rotag.mi.org>
        kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

]In article <76840@ut-emx.uucp> mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider) writes:
]>In article <1992Jul28.031212.26812@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
]>      Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception
]>                                                 ^^^^^^^^^
]>>	to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain
]>>	provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded.
]>
]>The Second Amendment's first clause does not specify an *exception*.  
]
]Read the second part, nimrod: "...or assumes to specify the effect of a
                       ^^^^^^
Do you know what this word means, Kebbie?

]certain provision". My point is that the intended EFFECT of the 2nd Amendment 
]RKBA is to empower the well-regulated militia to promote the security of a
]free state. By _expressio unius est exclusio alterius_, then, we can
]exclude all other effects of the provision, i.e. the alleged "universal"
]RKBA does not exist.

Then what of the ninth amendment, Kebbin?  To wit:  "The enumeration
in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny
or disparage others retained by the people."  In other words, the RKBA
within a well-regulated militia, enumerated within the constitution,
does not deny a general RKBA if such a right can be established a
priori.

Note, by the way, that the "right to keep and bear arms" is an
individual right, and not the group "the right to keep arms and the
right to bear arms."

Followups set to alt.kebbie.bang.bang.bang.



--
Barry Schwartz        trashman@crud.mn.org
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Denver Police Kill Another Un-Armed Person, Today!
Date: 4 Sep 92 05:09:54 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

minh@inst-sun1.jpl.nasa.gov (Minh Lang) writes:

>>	that I can't describe it in words.  That Americans have gotten so
>>	damned complacent that they would stand for this kind of shit is
>>	beyond my comprehension.  

>It's FAR beyond my comprehension too. I just can't understand
>why it keeps happening year after year? 

Why?

Because we all sit on our asses and complain instead of doing something.
Because we bitch instead of running for office.
Because we allow the media set the agenda for public debate.
Because we vote for incumbents.
Because we accept blantantly unconstitutional government action as long as
	it either helps us personally or doesn't gore our own ox.
Because we're not willing to get involved.
Because we EVER think the government can fix anything.

I'm guilty of one or more of the above so I'm the pot calling the kettle
black.  

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: Reading Brady
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 22:28:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: N/I

In article <71480@apple.Apple.COM> earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace) writes:
[ ... ]
>Let's say the chief says the buyer is a bad guy and stops the sale of the gun.
>Is there any "punishment" of the chief if he lies?  Does the chief has to
>prove the buyer is bad or can he just say "he's bad" and thats it?  How many
>times do we see someone in these higher offices doing something that is
>outright criminal, but they never get punished because of the "wording of
>the law"?

IMHO the best idea yet for protection us peon citizens against this kind
of abuse is the following from last year's Staggers Bill:
 
          (2) PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION.--Any person denied a handgun because
     the hotline established under this section  provided erroneous information
     relating  to the  person  may bring  an  action in  any United  States
     district  court against the United  States, or any  State or political
     subdivision thereof which is the  source of the erroneous information,
     for damages (including consequential damages), injunctive relief, and
     such  other relief  as  the court  deems  appropriate. If  the  person
     prevails in the action, the court shall allow  the person a reasonable
     attorney's fee as part of the costs.
 
The attorney's fee award is crucial.  It means you don't have to
be rich (or a lawyer with spare time :-)  to defend your rights.
--------
The 2nd Amendment is about sovereignty, not duck hunting.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak)
Subject: Minolta Corporation
Originator: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:12:38 GMT

<34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:

>Sam Kusumoto, chairman and CEO of Minolta Corporation is quoted
>in  _The Clarion-Ledger_ of Jackson, Miss., as follows,
>according to a story by Dan Davis:

>     "We don't know why the American government still
>      permits people to possess a gun. The country that
>      teaches Western civilization to Japanese still
>      permits people to carry guns. This we do not
>      understand."

 How much do you want to bet that he gets driven around in 
 an armored limo, has the best alarm/security systems money
 can buy at both home & work, and even has "executive protection"
 specialist watching his every move.  Give me that and I'll
 give up my "combat" guns. Also, why is it that one thing
 that tourist from Japan love to do is go shooting!

 BTW: What made this comment "news-worthy"?  Can you say agenda,
 sure you can!

                                Bill Vojak
                                Bill_Vojak@stortek.com
                                NRA, ILA, CFC

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER NOT!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Wrongful police shooting statistics (was Re: Gun control)
Date: 25 Aug 92 16:36:07 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

gray@hawkmoon.mn.org (Bill Gray) writes:
>
>Other studies show that armed citizens use lethal force wrongly about 1/3
>as often as "trained" police officers.

I would be interested in more information about this statistic.  Is it
just an annual count of total wrongful-shooting incidents, divided into
police vs. civilians?  That wouldn't be very meaningful, of course,
since it would not consider the frequency of armed encounters in each
group.  It would be much more interesting if they had a breakdown of
_all_ lethal encounters for a given period of time, then divided it
into police/civilian and justifiable/wrongful categories and computed
the "wrongful shooting" percentage for each group.

Could you please provide more information/references?

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
From: dalton@mantle.Geop.UBC.CA (David Dalton)
Subject: Fabrikant murders
Organization: Dept. of Geophysics & Astronomy, UBC, Vancouver, Canada
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 10:34:17 GMT

Valeri Fabrikant, a professor in Mechanical Engineering at Concordia,
recently murdered three colleagues and injured others, after a long
battle over tenure and authorship.  He also E-mailed accusations
and info to a large mailing list.  The case will probably
be brought up as a reason to tighten Canada's gun laws.

If anyone is interested, Fabrikant's original E-mailings have been
posted to sci.research and sci.research.careers by Dov Bai 
(bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu).  There are 13 parts, titled
Fraud and extortion at Concordia University (Canada)
Fraud and extortion at Concordia University (Canada) (part II--XIII)

If they have expired at your  site, E-mail me and I will send them to you.  
I will post them here if I get a lot of requests, but would prefer not to
since the file is quite large.

A fairly lively discussion has been going on in sci.research
and sci.research.careers as a result of Fabrikant's postings.
Many of the posters think there may be something to Fabrikant's
accusations and think there should be an investigation.  Of
course, none of them agree with his methods.  There is also
some discussion in soc.culture.canada and can.general.  The more
recent discussion is beginning to turn toward how he was allowed
to get a gun permit.

David <Dalton@Geop.UBC.CA>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dadams@cray.com (David Adams)
Subject: Re: CLINTON NEW TEXT: GUN CONTROL
Reply-To: dadams@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 27 Aug 92 13:35:49 CDT

In article 5856@transfer.stratus.com, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
|In article <viking.714451326@vincent1.iastate.edu>, viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
|> 
|> 	If this is true, I may just vote for Bush.  Why?  I planned
|> on voting Libertarian, but if this extreme is what the Clinton/Gore
|> ticket can assure me, perhaps I'm better off voting so they lose
|> rather than so all of them get the message?  There's always '96 for
|> voting Libertarian, but by then what else will I have lost if my
|> vote didn't help defeat what we all saw?
|> 
|> 	This is going to require some serious soul-searching.
|
|Just remember, no president can do it all on his own.  Even if Clinton gets
|in, his "National Police Force" won't happen without a lot of congressional
|hand-holding, and you can be sand in the gears every step of the way.
|-- 

It will clearly be much easier for Clinton to work with his Democratic
Congress than it would be for Bush.

Keep the gridlock!  ;^)  (No new legislation would be much better
than more oppressive legislation!)

---
--David C. Adams  Statistician  Cray Research Inc.  dadams@cray.com
___________________________________________________________________
       member--Minnesotans for Global Warming.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns