HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: m15133@mwvm.mitre.org (Graham K. Glover)
Subject: Support to Protect 2nd Amendment
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 12:36:16 GMT

Is any group actively supporting the protection of the 2nd Amendment from 
H. J. Res. 438?  Any magazines?

On August 12, 1992, I called the LA office of Reason magazine (a magazine 
ostensibly devoted to "FREE MINDS & FREE MARKETS" -- their words, not 
mine) to find out whether or not they were aware of this bill.  The lady 
with whom I spoke said that the editor, Virginia (I assume this was a 
reference to Virginia Postrel), was aware of the bill, but was not overly 
concerned.

EDITORIALIZATION:  I guess we don't need protected rights to have free 
minds and free markets.  I hope that Reason isn't too concerned if I don't 
renew my subscription next year.  END EDITORIALIZATION.

Maybe H. J. Res. 438 won't make it to its chilling conclusion whereby the 
2nd Amendment is abolished (obviously including 3/4 States' approval for 
ratification if the bill makes it thru Congress).  Yet, if the proponents 
of Liberty don't rally for the 2nd Amendment, who will?!

"What do you get for pretending the danger's not real?"  Pink Floyd, 
_Animals_ [Sheep]

DISCLAIMER:  STANDARD DISCLAIMER

----------------
Graham K. Glover
----------------
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Burglars, selfdefense & guns
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:50:54 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak) /  8:15 am  Aug 11, 1992 /

cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes:

>>some Canadians take too much for granted and harp on their RIGHTS
>>only because it suits their needs. I mean just what the hell do you feel
>>you NEED a firearm for anyway? Home defence? against what?another creep
>>with a GUN?

Bill writes:

> How about multiple unarmed intruders. In addition, many people
> will tell you that the "typical" burglar is unarmed, so why
> do you need a gun. There are some facts that they don't mention.

In addition to Bill's point about criminals very likely arming
themselves once in your home, I'd like to point out the source of that
statistic "only 3% of burglars are armed."

According to Ayoob, that number is derived from asking burglars!  Now,
first of all, only a VERY small percent of burglars are caught in the
act.  (Actually, very few burglars are caught at all!)  At any rate,
most of the relatively few burglaries that are solved at all, are
solved after the fact, by police investigation.

Most criminals are pragmatists.  That is why they prey on the weak and
wait for the police NOT to be there.  They aren't armed unless they are
"on the job."  Most of them are on parole for one thing or another and
being armed is a violation of their parole and is an automatic return to
prison.

So, imagine yourself caught by a detective and placed in the
interrogation room.  A cop is speaking:  "Ok, we got you for the
burglary.  You're going back to prison!  Now, you don't want to go back
for just a year do you?  Wouldn't you rather be raped by your buddies
for a full five years?  All you gotta do is tell me you were armed
during the burglary.  You were weren't you?"

What would YOU say?

Ayoob claims that an informal survey he conducted convinced HIM that
more like 75-85 percent of burglars were armed.  Personally, I'd tend to
agree with him.  Besides, even if it were only 3%, do you want to risk
your life on even 1 chance out of 30?

Rick.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Suicides, injuries, and Vigilantees.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 17:19:56 GMT
Organization: N/I

In article <veal.198@utkux1.utk.edu> veal@utkux1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.173826.12566@riacs.edu> gahooten@george.arc.nasa.gov (Greg Hooten -- IAS) writes:
[ ... ]
>>From 75300.3115@compuserve.com  Tue Aug 11 10:23:19 1992
>>From: Clinton for President <75300.3115@CompuServe.COM>
[ ... ]
>>Thank you for your note re the gun issue.  There are several other points
>>that need to be addresses as well.  I have not received any mail yet on
>>the issue of a nation of laws vs a nation of vigalantees.  
>
>     Owning a gun does not make someone a vigilante, and neither does using 
>it in protection of one's life.  Vigilanteism consists of a person being
>judge, jury and executioner in the punishment of a crime.  In self-defense,
>the goal is to stop the attack, not punish the attacker.

This definition of "vigilantee" -- which I support -- does not fit a korean
shopkeeper defending his or her livelihood, but it _does_ fit the looters
who claimed to be doing so as a means of redressing ancient wrongs; and it
_does_ fit those who beat Reginald Denny and others during the LA riots ...

>>Do you have any constructive comments on these issues?

I _love_ being asked for "constructive" comments by someone who
has just framed the issue in a non-constructive way.  (NOT  :-)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 12:41:57 GMT

In article <16848367.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (David Veal) writes:
>From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (David Veal)
>Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
>Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 05:14:26 GMT

Mr. Veal, I KNOW you.  Unless the cop had probably cause, such a question 
woudl infuriate you.  You'd sue.

>     How about putting his hand on his sidearm and asking, "What is
>that in your pocket, sir?"
>
>========================================================================
>| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
>|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
>========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Canadian Gun Control (Was Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform))
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:52:11 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) /  3:14 pm  Aug 20, 1992 /
>In article <DLB.92Aug19102759@fanny.wash.inmet.com> dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes:
>}In article <1992Aug7.214140.29061@news.Hawaii.Edu>
>}lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:
>}...
>}   If guns were made illegal, that would increase their price, so
>}...
>}By all means, support this assertion too.
>
>You want proof that restricting supply doesn't increase prices?

No, I think he is asking for proof that restricting the supply of 
LEGAL guns would increase the price (or decrease the supply) of ILLEGAL 
guns.  Since something like only 1 out of 6 firearms used by criminals 
are obtained through legal channels, legally owned firearms are not NOT 
terribly  significant as a source of firearms for criminals.  Thus, if 
you aren't affecting the supply, why do you conclude that you will 
affect the price? 

Perhaps you are referring to the way that making certain drugs illegal 
increased their price.  Does this stop anybody who wants them?

Rick.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Time to Fight
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 18:48:05 GMT

In article <1684844.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
(David Veal) writes:
>>Has anyone else noticed that it's not safe to be in your home lately?  You
>>could be in the shower, hear some noise, get your gun, walk into the hall
>>and end up dead when the cops shoot a dozen holes in your naked body.
>>
>     There have been more than a few cases of criminals bursting into
>homes and shouting "Police!"  People then automatically do what
>they are told, and only once it is too late do they realize what a
>terrible mistake they've made and that this is *no* police officer.
>     Of course, if you do assume that it is a criminal and defend yourself,
>you'll get crucified by the legal system.

It seems to me that we need to make some DRASTIC changes regarding our
police forces.  The police should never be able to storm your house
in the manner described in this thread.  And masks are way out.  Even
Jeff Cooper has said that a man in a mask, carrying a gun, should be
regarded as a target by the armed civilian.

My dealings with police have always been cordial; however, it's clear that
they've been given way too much power and aren't handling it responsibly.

   don
From: post@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (David Post)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:11:31 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: I joined today
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

Jordan Marc Kossack and Don Baldwin discuss:

 >- What's the difference between the ILA and the Political Victory Fund?
 >
 >   The ILA lobbies.  The PVF bribes ... uhhh, makes campaign contributiions.  

The ILA works on supporting and defeating legislation, the PVF works on
supporting ( and defeating? ) political candidates.

David Post  davep@hpfcpp.fc.hp.com  hplabs!hpfcla!post
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:02:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <cthong.714252278@sfu.ca>, cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes:

> >>>	As for the rights/need argument.   Rights are the things you
> >>>don't have to justify with "need".  When a police officer wants to look 
> >>>around in your house w/o a warrant, you don't say no because you "need" 
> >>>privacy, you say no because it is your house.  

> >Doesn't this sound like
> >>you've got something in your place that you don't want the authorities
> >>to see? look.. i plan on signing on with my country's police force
> >>next time. and it's RIGHTS like this that would make my job of keeping
> >>the peace and ensuring public safety more DIFFICULT than it already is.

Hey, pal, that's why they call it WORK.  I don't exist for the convenience
of cops.  They exist to serve ME.

> then why do i feel more free than you? why do i have less problems with
> my own security and trust in my govt than you? 

All steers feel free until they see what's at the far end of the chute.
But feel free to trust your government, if you're of a religious bent.
-- 

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...
From: jrk@information-systems.east-anglia.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: 13 Aug 92 09:12:45 GMT

In <1992Aug13.031901.21953@news.eng.convex.com>, cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:

>I agree that some kind of discipline is called for--the officer should at
>least be fired.

Yes.  With an MP-5 submachine gun.

--
Richard Kennaway     SYS, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Internet:  jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk               uucp:  ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 2 (was Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:41:42 GMT

In article <viking.714195781@vincent1.iastate.edu>, viking@iastate.edu
(Dan Sorenson) writes:

No flames intended here.  Just thought I'd clear up what I had said.

> In <1992Aug18.234015.25204@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>
> >And if it happens to be an innocent bystander, oh well...  I find
> >this idea unacceptable.  The idea that you can sacrifice a few
> >innocent folks, to get the "bad guys".
> 
> 	Do the police count as the innocents in this instance, or
> does it depend on their actions?

The police _are_ innocent, until their actions prove otherwise.  Similarly
for any "suspect" being arrested.  They are _not_, however, "bystanders".
This is the real difference.

As a thought experiment, consider a firefight across a road.  Now some
dizzy non-combatant walks into the middle of the firefight (yes, it's
stupid, but some people do dumb things).  Should the officer worry about
the well-being of this idiot, or keep shooting at the "bad guy"?  The
officer is innocent, but our wandering idiot is an innocent bystander.

If an officer goes to arrest a suspect, and the suspect does something
that could be construed as an attack, the officer _may_ be justified
in shooting him.  If an officer goes to arrest a suspect, and shoots
an unidentified person (without a _clear_ threat), (s)he is probably
reckless.  I would think that the well-being of persons who are not
suspects would be of primary importance (and it was known that there
were non-suspects present...).

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: srg@quick.com (Spencer Garrett)
Subject: Re: ACLU question
Organization: Quicksilver Engineering, Seattle USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:56:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.174128.12260@m.cs.uiuc.edu>,
	kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

> I'm just curious, how many NRA's members support all civil liberties?
> For example, how many were pleased with the Court's flag burning
> decision?

Most of the ones I know were.  Most of us are "pro-choice" on damn
near any issue.  And there's simply an amazing range of lifestyles
and political viewpoints amoung the members of my gun club, but we
get along pretty well.

Learning to shoot a gun accurately and quickly, making the decision
to carry it with you all the time, and knowing that you may have to
make the decision to use it someday (and live with the consequences)
can be a very sobering experience.  Time and again I have seen it
turn a hothead into a thoughtful, tolerant person, at least while
he's carrying a gun.  (Some of them are still hotheads when they
know it's safe.  The transformation is striking.)
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Reading Brady
Date: 21 Aug 92 01:59:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

I'm confused, guys.  I can't see that the Brady Bill is saying what 
some of you folks say it does.

I heard the claim that the clock doesn't start ticking on the waiting
period until the chief acknowledges receipt of the request.  I don't
see that ANYWHERE.

I also heard the criticism that it doesn't require a background check.
While this is technically true, it is also technically true that the
waiting period is clearly "for the purpose of" a background check.
If one gets done, you get the gun immediately, and if one isn't done, 
because your chief is lazy or stubborn, you still get the gun after the 
seven days are up.

Here's what I read:

(1) A dealer may not sell a handgun unless one of the following is true:

     A.	The dealer ID's the buyer, has him sign a statement saying
	he's a Good Guy, and gives it to the chief within one day.

	The chief can then do a background check, and when/if he
	reports that the buyer is OK, the waiting period stops then.

	If the chief doesn't respond, the waiting period still stops 
	after seven days and the dealer can deliver.  (If the chief
	finds out the buyer is a Bad Guy, see 4.)

     B.	The buyer comes in with a recent note from his chief saying,
	"Sell this person a gun -- he's in danger."  No waiting
	period here.

     C. The buyer shows a State gun-ownership permit not more than
	five years old, in which case there is no waiting period.
	(That means no waiting period in MA, if I understand this.)

     D. Your state requires at least a seven-day waiting period, or
	requires some official to certify that buyers are Good
	Guys. (I don't really believe I'm parsing that right --
	can anybody do better?)

     E. The dealer gets an official FEDERAL report from somewhere,
	saying that the buyer is a good guy.

(2) If the chief doesn't want to do anything, he doesn't have to.
    (But the clock STILL ticks despite his inaction.)

(3) (describes the statement the buyer has to sign.)

(4) If the chief later tells the dealer that the buyer is a Bad
    Guy (after he already has the gun), the dealer must contact
    the two chiefs where the buyer lives and works.  (Due to (6),
    this shouldn't happen after 30 days, unless the chief is in
    the habit of publishing all felony records to all gun dealers.)

(5) Private information given the dealer will be kept private.

(6) The dealer keeps all records of the sale.  The chief has to
    destroy all records within 30 days of receiving them, whether
    he has acted on them or not.

(7) (defines "chief.")

(8) (Can't parse, not clear which "subsection (c)" this references.)

The rest is not interesting.
-- 

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
From: cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong)
Subject: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:15:04 GMT

beman@terapin.com (Bemis Jarvis) writes:

>get real Its america and speaking from serving in the shit hole oil war, you
>dont like my country go to hell.... other wise serve a few years and find out
>that that's what we win wars with.... not talk guns.....
>and if you reply to this message make sure you have a leg to stand on not an
i served in the singapore armed forces as an infantry section commander.
had training trips to more countries than you ever will . i may not have served
in a war but if you want to talk soldier stuff with me don't bother.
you are talking from a soldier's point of view . a gun is seen as a firearm 
specifically for killing and a direct political tool . fix up your own home
front and then think about saving an oil republic . i personally think that
saddam had it coming but you tell me that it SHOULD be a common occurence
for the national guard to be called out to handle riots and unrest because
the local police can't . just THINK for a second why they'd have so much 
trouble with crowds and i'm sure that at least ONE of the reasons is that
they might be as well armed as the cops. >opinion......
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong)
Subject: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 05:20:56 GMT

....and as a last note on s'poreans'  lack of freedom  and having an anal 
retentive  govt.....
my american friend.....  we have lee kuan yew.
you should read up on him.
you on the other hand have to choose between  BUSH and CLINTON....
heh....

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:01:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.025804.20720@microsoft.com> alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>His "sources" were about an entirely different survey; they're not
>>relevant.
>
>We exchanged several rounds of t.p.g. postings on this subject.  In
>response to a direct question from you, I transcribed and posted the
>entire source on which I based my comments, INCLUDING A SPECIFIC
>REQUEST FOR CORRECTIONS if any of the information was incorrect or
>out of date.
>
>The response from you?  Dead silence.

Not quite.  We (I wasn't the only one) posted lots of information
information on the survey in question, including the date.  Ezekiel's
posting made it clear that he was talking about a different survey.  I
pointed that out a couple of times, but it was obvious to anyone who
paid attention.  (I "remember" that he replied to at least one of
those articles, so ....)  Several people, including myself, told him
how to get a copy of the survey results under discussion; he blew us
off.

I don't know about other people, but I usually ignore demands for
information that has been provided multiple times.  I'm also not all
that interested in discussions with people who aren't paying
attention.  If that's a problem....

>In short: I *DID* my research and posted my sources.  Your turn.

Done long ago.  Ezekiel didn't care then; I don't care now.  Maybe
someone else does.

>Perhaps you could refresh my memory.  You were discussing the study
>done by the NACP in 1989, right?  That is the same study I am talking
>about.

Wrong.  (BTW - NACP does a number of surveys each year, so "the study"
is ambiguous.)

-andy

ps - My use of last names is neither inappropriate nor hostile.



--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: gray@hawkmoon.mn.org (Bill Gray)
Subject: Re: Colorado Does Its Part For Firearms Last Night!
Organization: Semi-Public System (One of the Eternal Champions); Eagan, MN, 55123-2507, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:10:36 GMT

vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak) writes:

[snip]

>I will be voting for Ben for two main reasons:

>1) Other issues which is agree with him more than I agree
>   with Terry.

>2) Putting a Pro-Gun Democrat into the Senate, long term
>   will have greater benefit for gun owners. The only way
>   to have any chance of winning this war on the second
>   amendment is by reshaping the groups who are attacking
>   your rights. A Pro-Gun Democrat adds one more voice to
>   their ranks to Just Say NO to Ted Kennedy and other
>   Democratic leader who play politics using your rights
>   as bargining chips.

By all means, vote as your conscience dictates.  But remember that
the Senate leadership is implacably opposed to gun rights, and that they
will be able to offer or deny support to your candidate's initiatives
at their whim.

Thus, if gun control continues to be a hot issue (likely!), your Democrat
will be under enormous pressure form his own party to bolt.  They will
hold his bills and his Party reelection money hostage to get their way.

This, of course is equally true for Republicans, but they are somewhat
less hostile to us than Democrats tend to be.

Now if the majority of the Senate were to turn over. . .  :-)

Oh, well.  Sensible Minnesotans (both of us! :-)  are grateful that other
states are selecting better Senators than our prize, Paul (the Dweeb)
Wellstone.  :-(

Bill
-- 
gray@hawkmoon.mn.org
This site gets a fair news feed, but e-mail is more reliable. . . :-(
"Veni, vidi, vomiti!"  -- the ghost of Tom Jefferson on reading the Brady Bill