HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: Without a Clue...
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:43:39 GMT


In <1992Jul24.214026.27256@zip.eecs.umich.edu> John Kapson states:

|>Send letters to:
|>
|>Fence Post
|>P.O. Box 280
|>Arlington Heights, IL 60006
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|OH NO!!! I'm moving 5 miles from here tomorrow!  I hope stupidity
isn't contageous!   8-(  8-(  8-(

Well, I hate to inform you of this, but "stupidity" _IS_ contageous
in the Northern suburbs of Chicago. Sometimes, it amazes me that 
anti-gun police chiefs can even land in Dupage County... ALL the
major newspapers as well as the small local papers are anti-gun; the
small local papers are usually part of the Lerner chain, the Dailey
Herald is part of Paddock Publications and the Southtown Economist
is part of Pultizer.

The _ONLY_ time you will usually see a coherent pro-RKBA argument
is in the letter section of the Southtown Economist. They have a
phone number which you can call to express your opinion, and they
transcribe it for print. Some of the articles are on par with some
of the talk.politics.guns pro-gun arguments, and I am sometimes amazed
at the coherence of them. The Southtown Economist is oriented mosted
to the Southern part of Chicago, which is heavily blue collar.

Television? Don't even bother to ask.

Radio? I would have to say that it is mostly anti-RKBA, with an
occasional pro-gun type airing their views. If the commentator or
host came from the Northeast, you can guest EXACTLY where they stand
before they open their mouth. One commentator for WLUP-AM (1000khz)
came from NY, and when he came here he was spouting on his radio
program all sorts of pro-First Amendment propaganda; I simply had
to hold my breath for a short while before he spouted what I assumed
his views were all along: Anti-gun. That was based solely on the premise
that he was from "out East."

Remember, the Northern Suburbs of Crook eh, COOK County county is
where the Moron Groves, Oak Park, Winnetkas, Wilmettes, Lincolnshires,
Evanscum, etc. all have eviscerated the RKBA of the people. None of the
Southern suburbs have passed any handgun or semi-auto bans.

--------
"HCI is the contagion, the news media is the vector."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for sex and domestic violence
Organization: BNR, Inc. Research Triangle Park, NC
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 13:49:32 GMT

Robert Kesten wrote:
> In terms of debate I often think we
>need to be more careful about defending one design
>of firearm at the temporary expense of another.
 You have a good point, we shouldn't sell out our
brothers arms.    
 There are a few things to consider also:	
 1. In sheer numbers there are more voting gun owners
    than antis.
 2. the problem with the large numbers is that the skeet 
    shooters say I don't care if they ban handguns I don't 
    own one. The big game hunters say "so what about semi-autos
    they aren't after my bolt action" 
 3. the antis are using the divide and conquer technique one
    gun at a time, one law at a time.
    the media is helping spread their lies very well.
 4. If we can get the antis to admit they want to take all guns
    away. We will pick up the causual shooter and gun owner and 
    even take a portion of their camp away that honestly believe 
    they are interested in fighting crime not gun banning.

           Myron Petro
******************************************************************
all opinions expressed in this post are my sole responsibility
and protected by the First amendment and GUARANTEED by the 
Second amendment .

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: damiel@netcom.com (Paul Theodoropoulos)
Subject: Re: Rifleman needs enlightment (was Re: Enlightenment)
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 18:09:48 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
X-Spook-Fodder: hero heroin tree shrub bush birth life death FBI CIA NSA


this is all very entertaining, what with the ad hominem piled upon
ad hominem, but really - wouldn't it be less embarrassing for the both
of you if you took it to email?

no smiley.


-- 
paul theodoropoulos    hooools@well.sf.ca.us      damiel@netcom.COM

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 04:50:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.015907.1251@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.002050.16717@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>>|>	If gun laws make all the difference, why isn't Mexico 
>>|>	safer than the U.S.?
>>
>>Because with guns freely circulating north of the border ther is little
>>chance of gun control laws working?
>
>Then please explain why Canada has much lower crime rates than the US?
>By your reasoning, all those bad US guns ought to be as available to
>the Canadians as they are to the Mexicans.

Phil's argument is a very strong one because the security along the
US-Mexican border is much tighter than that along the US-Canadian
border.
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: LA Police Chief gets CCWP
Organization: "Well, a head on top, an arm on each side, two legs...."
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 00:37:10 GMT

In <1992Jul30.221613.24046@crash.cts.com> dbarber@pnet01.cts.com (David C. Barber) writes:

>The new head of the LA police department (Willie Williams) has requested, and
>received, a CCW permit since he travels in dangerous parts of town, has a high
>profile, and is not yet accredited in California as a law enforcement officer
>(exempt from CCW regulation).

>The review board, who has issued *only* this one permit in the last 25 (or so)
>years, insists that "we consider each case on its merits."

An interesting subnote: The report of this that I heard on the radio 
*included* a remark by someone (too far away from radio to hear) to the
effect of "this process should be open to every member of the public."

Does anybody know who said this?  Was it Williams?

-- 
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: Mike Tighe <tighe@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Call off the dogs. was Re:Waiting periods for guns and domestic violenc
Originator: tighe@convex1.convex.com
Reply-To: tighe@convex.com
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Texas
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 04:35:05 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

slzm9@cc.usu.edu writes:

>   In an article earlier today I said that I do not agree with
>the NRA's lobbying for maintaining the legality of automatic
>weapons.

The NRA never lobbyed for it as far as I know. In fact, they did just the
opposite; they bargained it away in 1986 in order to get the Firearms
Owners Protection Act passed.

>   I suggested that the AK-47 was an automatic weapon. And 
>since that article appeared I received five, count them five,
>responses in two hours telling me I was wrong. I meant the AKS
>assault "look-alike" rifle they said. Now I would like you to know that
>there IS an automatic AK-47 and it is a perfectly good example
>of an automatic weapon. So please stop telling me how I have been
>manipulated by the popular media.
>   And please don't assume someone doesn't know what they are
>talking about until you do a little investigation. Thank You.

As far as I know, the select-fire version of the AK-47, the AKM, or the
AK-74, has never been legally imported into the United States. A few have
been smuggled in, a few came in for evaluation by the US goverment. But as
far as I know none have been available legally to civilians.

If I am in error, please tell me the name of the importer of this weapon,
and from what country they were importing it, since it was/is manufactured
in several countries.
-- 
Mike Tighe, (214) 497-4206
tighe@convex.com
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Re: Washington State gun buy-back
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:55:01 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

> If the buy back is done by a private group there is a law
>  that states the BATF must be notified if a non FFL purchases
>  more than 2 handguns. What does the BATF do with this case?

Sounds like a good time to start using the 1-800 nubmers to BTAF.

There is a private group trying to illegally buy guns in Seattle.... 

Rick.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Rights and Justice
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:27:14 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.171713.57578@cc.usu.edu> slzm9@cc.usu.edu writes:

>>   I suggested that the AK-47 was an automatic weapon. And 
>since that article appeared I received five, count them five,
>responses in two hours telling me I was wrong. I meant the AKS
>assault "look-alike" rifle they said. Now I would like you to know that
>there IS an automatic AK-47 and it is a perfectly good example
>of an automatic weapon. So please stop telling me how I have been
>manipulated by the popular media.

Yes, there is a fully automatic AK-47, the sale of which is illegal to 
private citizens, even though none have ever been used in a crime.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
From: vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 24 Jul 92 19:09:29 GMT
Organization: Unversity of Cincinnati, ECE Dept

In article <1992Jul24.082241.146532@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>A woman who wants an abortion must call a clinic and schedule
>an appointment.  

This is not true everywhere. 

--
Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 03:37:30 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.172250.15417@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>>I know people in favor of banning TYPES of guns...including that flaming
>>>liberal Barry Goldwater, who said of semi-automatics (paraphrased): "Anyone
>>>who needs more than one bullet to kill a deer shouldn't be hunting anyway."
>
>>Yawn; at most that's an argument about deer hunting.  (Wanna bet ol'
>>Barry carries a repeater and more than one cartridge?  Wanna bet he
>>doesn't meet the minimum standard he proposes?)
>
>Yawn.  When confronted with facts, just take them out of context and make
>up hypotheticals.

That happened to be the complete context, so if it isn't complete
Novak can blame the guy in the mirror.

Those weren't hypotheticals; they were on hypocrisy.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:17978 talk.abortion:28912
From: dcwst8+@pitt.edu (David C Winters)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 25 Jul 92 14:19:04 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Jul24.190929.17896@uceng.UC.EDU> vlsi06@nest.ece.uc.edu (Gregory S Clausen) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.082241.146532@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>A woman who wants an abortion must call a clinic and schedule
>>an appointment.  
>
>This is not true everywhere. 

Uh, Gregory, old chap, you seem to be posting from a pro-life point of
view in order to oppose Ms. Garvin.  But, you forgot to include
talk.abortion in the newsgroups line, and you mistakenly put t.p.g IN
the distribution line.

Bottom line?  Please take this elsewhere, as you made no attempt to even
MENTION guns in your post.


>Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.

Just as an aside:  who would be offended by my assertion:
Ford Stops "The Heartbeat"  ?  


--
David Winters  
dcwst8@unix.cis.pitt.edu OR winters@vms.cis.pitt.edu

          Illigitimi non carborundum.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re:  Random gun control
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:20:51 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.234512.4775@trl.oz.au>, djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:
|> 
|> Here in the Australian State of Victoria we have random breath testing for
|> car drivers. The police set up a road block and breath test drivers for a
|> blood alcohol level less than .05. When this was introduced there were some
|> protests from a few civil liberatarians but most objections came from hotelliers
|> and other sellers of alcohol. The result now, some years later, is a change
|> in attitude towards drink diving and a much reduced road toll. A great community
|> and personal benefit in road safety at the cost of a few minutes hassle perhaps
|> a couple of times a year.
|> Most t.p.g. posters would like to see the criminal element in society disarmed,
|> so how would "random gun checks" be received in US states? I know some would
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Just a guess. Probably with civil war.

|> say this infringes some right but if you are a law-abiding citizen with a duly
|> registered firearm then surely this hassle would be a small price to pay to

Duly registered? You don't understand do you? The state has no right to
register guns.

|> disarm criminals. This would also make GUN CONTROL for law abiding citizens
|> unnecessary.
|> 
|> DJ...
|> 

But this IS GUN CONTROL for law abiding citizens. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: uk09365@nx02.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: Summary: "Inside" news program covers GUNS
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:48:20 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.163540.536@microsoft.com> alane@microsoft.com (Alan  
Ezekiel) writes:
> Last Friday night (7/24/92), the episode of "Inside" covered gun  
control.
> For those unfamiliar with it, "Inside" is an issues/news broadcast which
> covers a single issue, in some depth, during the entire half-hour show;
> the program is broadcast on the local PBS station, and appears to be
> regional rather than national.  The program had an interview format, and
> did not present information or statistics beyond what the interviewees
> said.
> 
> The first portion of the program interviewed people on both sides of the
> gun control debate.  Highlights included:
>   * A leading "neighborhood watch" person in a residential Canadian
>     neighborhood, who is presently leading the effort to ban knives
>     as a reaction against the increased number of stabbings.  He
>     expressed amazement that private ownership/carry of guns was
>     still allowed in the United States.

	What kind of knives?  If he means kitchen knives, etc. the
man gets my July "David Dinkins" award for stupidity.
[named for the intellectually challenged mayor of New York City
who responded to the STABBING death of Provo, UT tennis fan
Brian Watkins by insisting that NYC needed stricted gun control.]

Robert K.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: PUBLIC APOLOGY (wuz: talk.politics.guns)
Organization: Twilight Zone
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:27:05 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.125920.187@lrc.edu> blosser_cy@lrc.edu writes:
>First of all I will admit to my stupidity and thoughtlessness in posting such
>an irrational flame to your newsgroup. 
>
	[snip...]
	
>As for this...
>
>> 	I see this is going to be an impartial exposition, judging by the
>> 	opening remarks. 
>> 
>> 	Sir, you have begun your post with several assumptions that I believe
>> 	you will be hard pressed to prove. First you say that people (or did 
>> 	you mean 'man' in the literal sense?) are inherently wicked.  I
>> 	strongly disagree.  Look for evil and you will find it even where there
>> 	is none. 
>
>Explain Hitler. Explain Stalin. Explain Mai Lai. 

	Explain? I'm not quite sure I perceive the young knight's request.
	Let's see...  Hitler, Stalin etc., did some fairly nasty stuff,
	especially the Stalin regime.  Does this necessarily maske them
	evil?  Maybe, maybe not, but let us assume it does for the sake of
	the conversation.  The next question is "does this necessarily mean
	that ther are INTRINSICALLY evil?"  At this point, there is no
	stretch of the imagination that is likely to cause an intelligent,
	rational, and open minded individual to accept this as necessariyl
	true.  Think about the infants Hitler and Stalin.  I somehow doubt
	that they were evil(tm) at the age of 3 months or at 10 years or...

	Since it is very difficult to extend the concept of INTRINSICALLY
	evil to persons that we have (at least for now) agreed were at least
	at some point in their lives evil, it becomes perhaps several orders
	of magnitude more difficult to extend this idea to the set of all
	humans beings, which is exactly what you did.

	Again (and not to get mushy here) I bid you consider small children.
	If you can look at any randomly picked child and see an intriniscally
	evil being, then I would say you may have a severe problem with self
	hatred and may consider seeing a good therapist (1/2:) ).

	Just because large volumes of the human race may turn to shit (in terms
	of their behavior) it does not in any way whatsoever imply, prove or
	otherwise follow that we as a species are intrinsically evil(tm).
	All I can say is that it is a very sad thing if you really believe
	what you said, and such attitudes only serve to aid in the perpetuation
	of the manifold problems that beset us in terms of interpersonal
	relations and culture.

>Explain the endless tragedies
>of history and the cruel acts of violence committed against one another...what
>is this, if not 'evil'? 

	What about it?  Shit happens and some of it may indeed be evil, by
	some given definition.  However this says nothing of the true nature
	of the human animal beyond that they have the potential for committing
	such acts and that at times they indeed do, and nothing more.

>> 	Uh huh.
>
>Least we agree on SOMEthing. =)

	Hee hee hee...
>
>Thanks again for your time and I apologize for disturbing you.

	No sweat, I had fun.


	-Andy V.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: "Direct" methods of crime control
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 16:57:23 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.041403.18742@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> dyrda@gn.ecn.purdue.edu
(The Conservative) writes:
>><   >       Question: which will open the average house door faster, 
>><   >       a lock pick or a pipe wrench?
>
>  Who cares?? Do what Sen. (NY) Tony Imperiali says,
>
> "If a guy come in your house, shoot his ass dead, put a knife in his
>hand and then call the police!!!"
> 
> If your not home then oh well, criminals strike again. Cut
>AIDS research and put it into Law Enforcement, but I can't
>stand the fags bitching!!!

Massad Ayoob says in "The Gravest Extreme" that shooting a burglar you
know is unarmed is stupid and criminal.

In addition, idiots who say things like that are probably about as
dangerous to my right to keep guns as Sarah Brady is.

Congratulations!  I hope you're proud of yourself.

   don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To quote James Wright:
    "Indeed, I am now of the opinion that a compelling case for "stricter
    gun control" cannot be made, at least not on empirical grounds.  I have
    nothing but respect for the various pro-gun control advocates with whom
    I have come in contact over the past years.  They are, for the most part,
    sensitive, humane and intelligent people, and their ultimate aim, to
    reduce death and violence in our society, is one that every civilized
    person must share.  I have, however, come to be convinced that they are
    barking up the wrong tree."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Baldwin  -  Software Engineer  - e-mail to:  donb@tamri.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: uk09365@nx02.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: UC Berkeley Police Rifles? (Was Re: Hate Speech Okay, says ...) 
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 20:15:52 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.030143.8363@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E.  
Schaffer) writes:
> In article <1992Jul30.142947.23811@Princeton.EDU>  
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
> > ...  if you go to Berkeley
> >now, you will find that the campus policecars come equipped with high
> >powered rifles.   ...
> 
>   I can imagine shotguns in police cars, but is this comment about
> "high powered rifles" based in fact?
> 
> --henry schaffer

	Five-Six years ago I worked for the "Parking and 
	Transportation" Department here at the University
	of Kentucky (Lexington).  We shared facilities with
	with the UK Police (38 sworn-officer, fully
	accredited police department).  There was a large
	closet in the police station which housed 
	numerous M16A1 rifles AND  four (4) M-60 
	machine guns, all with ammo.  I saw this myself
	around 1986 or '87.  There were about 30 of the
	M-16s and they had riot gear, too.

	It seems like I was told (I forget the details)
	that the weaponry was NOT part of the campus
	police arsenal :-) but was stored their for
	one of the local guard or reserve units.

	[still, pretty serious seeing M-60s in a campus
	police station!]

Robert K.
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Virginia Firearms Investigative Unit
Date: 22 Jul 92 02:04:53 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Jul20.190526.5236@SSD.intel.com>, hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
> |> >The check is not being fooled or failing.  The check is only valid if you 
> |> >provide legitimate ID AND have no criminal record.  A strawman who's clean 
> |> >can buy guns under the check all day long and tote them across the boarder.

> |> As soon as one of the guns used in a crime and traced back to VA comes up
> |> with his ID as the purchaser and end of trace, then he is no longer clean,
> |> until (and if) his case is resolved.

What I hear then is:

> Tracing a firearm back to the purchaser proves nothing, except that he performed
> the last "on the books" transaction.

1) Instant "Staggers"-type checks are easily defeated through multiple
   strawmen.

> You have to prove that he performed a strawman transaction, which is generally a
> neat trick, as two or three "off the books" transactions may have occurred
> between the original purchaser and the person who used it criminally.

2) Waiting periods may not stop the illegal flow of firearms across state
   borders, but might be effective at slowing it down.  But only if applied
   to every purchase of a gun (which is how it is usually proposed anyway).

> All the trace accomplishes is to tie up some finite amount of police resources
> that could be put to better use.

3) Criminals have an easy way to obtain firearms from legitimate dealers,
   but it's not worth doing anything about.

> Another instance of a government "prohibition created crime" making money for the
> lawless.

4) In fact, we should just let them buy directly.

I can't believe I'm hearing this.
-- 

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...