HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak)
Subject: Colorado Does Its Part For Firearms Last Night!
Originator: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 14:03:46 GMT

Two years ago when Pro-Gun Senator Bill Armstrong announced
that he would not seek re-election, many Anti-Gun candidates
such as Josie Heath (D) jumped on the bandwagon. Colorado
responded by electing Pro-Gun, NRA endorsed, "A" rated
Hank Brown.

This year when Anti-Gun Senator Tim Wirth announced that he
would not seek re-election, the Pro-Gun people in the state
saw it as an opportunity. We couldn't do much worse than
Tim Wirth, "F rated" so even if the efforts failed, we would 
be no worse off than if Tim Wirth had run for re-election.

Last night Colorado did its part for the second amendment.
On the Republican side, Pro-Gun Terry Considine is the
candidate for the US Senate. On the Democratic side, Pro-
Gun Ben Nighthorse Campbell beat two Anti-Gun candidates,
Josie Heath and Dick Lamm, for the spot as their candidate.

Both of these candidates are NRA endorsed! Ben Campbell
is "A" or "A+" rated, based on his voting as a Rep in
the US House. I'm not sure Terry Considine has actually
been rated, but he to is expected to fall into the "A"
range. Neither of these candidates support the Brady bill.

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.

Ben Campbell got ~48% of the vote, Lamm ~34% and Heath 18%.
Campbell is leading in the polls over Considine by a large 
margin, perhaps because Considine is not Pro-Choice.

The funny part is, if Heath had NOT run, there is a reasonable
chance that Dick Lamm might have won. (Speculation on my part
but a reasonable chance). Instead Josie Heath may have helped
your gun rights by spoiling the election for Lamm. Now all
we have to do is dump Schroder and Skaggs to help clean up
the House. :-)

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just say no to Wirth, Schroder & Skaggs in 92' - 3 NRA "F" Politicians
And Josie Heath Also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kapson@dip.eecs.umich.edu (John Kapson)
Subject: Message to Andy V. (Mr. X)
Keywords: Damned mailer!  >-(
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:21:32 GMT


Andy, are you getting _any_ of my mail?  Please let me know!

jkapson@nis.naitc.com
   -OR-
kapson@dip.eecs.umich.edu
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Rock Island & Dalton Cases
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:39:17 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Aug20.110330.24652@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, bb063@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher J. Crobaugh) writes:
>       Even curiouser is the fact that the government lost at the
> circuit court level and appealed; then, however, the government
> itself dismissed the appeal. Why? Could it be that the government
> thought it would lose? That a higher court yet would agree that
> the government has NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE GUNS?

Worse.  Right now the damage to NFA 1934 is localized to residents of
the Illinois District.  If the Supremes heard the case and concurred, 
NFA would be bowdlerized nationally.
-- 

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: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Guns, and the necessity to trust our governement.
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:21:34 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


> (Hint: mix gas and soap and your have a nasty sticky flammable
> substance)

Gas and coffee cups work much better.  Actually gas and anything with
a class 4 5 or 6 recycleable symbol on it works great.

Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-P  LPVa NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E"
Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia
Send e-mail for an application and more information
----------------------------------------------------------------
"...I am opposed to all attempts to license or restrict the arming of
individuals...I consider such laws a violation of civil liberty, 
subversive of democratic political institutions, and self-defeating
in their purpose."
        - Robert Heinlein, in a 1949 letter concerning "Red Planet"
-- 
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.
From: brian@pdx.csd.mot.com (Brian Vandewettering)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Keywords: joke, very funny, haha, etc.
Date: 18 Aug 92 20:56:31 GMT
Reply-To: brian@pdx.csd.mot.com (Brian Vandewettering)
Organization: Motorola CSD, Beaverton, OR

In article <14106@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>
>Hmmm. Did they have rocket launchers and semi-automatic rifles when the
>second amendment was passed?  Just wondering?

No, they didn't have these items.  However, they did have rifled muskets 
which had twice the effective range as the British smooth bore muskets.
Besides, a well regulated militia (one that can hit what it shoots at), 
must be armed with the weapons of the day in order to be effective.
Therefore, they are protected under the second amendment.

The Telephone, FAX machine, Radio and Television are protected under
the Constitution's first amendment, and they were certainly not invented
at the time.  

>-- 
>+============================================================================++
>| John Fereira            "Is that all you ever think about?"                |
>| johnf@auspex.com                                                           |
>+============================================================================++


-- 
"It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to
be without effect..."

- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: 14 Aug 92 03:32:58 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


re: The MOVE incident in Philadelphia, speak as one who was living
there at the time

The only reason why the mayor survived that day was that he was black
(Wilson Goode)

Had someone like Frank Rizzo been responsible, said person would have
been lynched on the spot for political incorrectness.

Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-P  LPVa NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E"
Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia
Send e-mail for an application and more information
----------------------------------------------------------------
"...I am opposed to all attempts to license or restrict the arming of
individuals...I consider such laws a violation of civil liberty, 
subversive of democratic political institutions, and self-defeating
in their purpose."
        - Robert Heinlein, in a 1949 letter concerning "Red Planet"
-- 
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: loki@acca.nmsu.edu (Entropic Destroyer)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: New Mexico State University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 04:03:47 GMT

Rick Bressler (bressler@iftccu.boeing.com) wrote:
: >The Seattle Times for August 8th has a front-page story entitled
: >"SWAT Killing: No Charges  //  State finds no negligence despite
: >split inquest jury".
: >
: 
: In such a situation being startled, for example, can cause your fingers
: to contract with up to 50 lbs of pressure without you even realizing it.
: No firearm has a trigger that requires much more than 25% of that force
: to operate.  This is called the startle reaction.  Perhaps Tony made a
: mistake, but it may have been only having his finger on the trigger.
: There are other psychological forces of equal importance at work as well.
: I think there are at least four ways of making somebody involuntarily
: contract muscles.
: 
If this was the case, then I contest that his superiors screwed up; the man
was not trained to be a SWAT member.  He violated Jeff Cooper's rule #1:
do NOT put your finger inside the trigger guard UNTIL the sights are on the
target... and a SWAT member should KNOW what his target is BEFORE he puts
his finger inside the trigger guard.

--
"Master... Master...                       (To The Tune of Metallica's)
	Master of Science is your degree.  ('Master of Puppets')
	You're too dumb for a PhD.              loki@acca.nmsu.edu
	Should have studied for the GRE!    dftaylor@cechem.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: National Crime Database
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 17:57:21 GMT
Organization: N/I
Keywords: database, RSA, Staggers, instant

In article <1992Aug7.202617.12968@cbfsb.cb.att.com> osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) writes:
>Hmmm... I think I *hear* something... CD-ROM DB's...  instant checks...

I just read "Achieving Electronic Privacy," by David Chaum, Scientific
American, vol. 267, no. 2 (August 1992), pp. 96-101.  Among other things,
he describes secure "credentials" (modulo the crackability of public-key
encryption, as usual).  For example, a secure digital driver's license.
Also negative credentials -- for example, absence of a felony conviction.
Chaum's credentials are designed to credibly assert a specified attribute
of a person/organization/etc. --> WITHOUT REVEALING THEIR IDENTITY <--
(or anything else not specifically asserted by that credential).

I personally would find it a lot more palatable than the present system
if I were able to walk into a gun store; electronically and _anonymously_
prove that I was not a felon, fugitive, nut, etc.; then walk right out
with both that new .22 rifle (say) _and_ a new electronic credential that
enables me -- but no one else -- to prove that I own this particular gun.

>I KNOW!  It's the sound of KNUCKLING UNDER!  Imagine that.  I can't believe

Bear in mind the _present_ situation:  every new firearm, and every old one
that passes through a dealer, is registered on paper.  Parts of the paper
database are being systematically copied, some say illegally.  The NRA is
suing various government agencies about this.  Meanwhile, Rome burns ...
--------
Sen. Terry Sanford, who as Governor of North Carolina refused police protection
to a Civil Rights march, supports your Right to Keep and Bear Sporting Goods.
From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (aaron greenwood)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Guns, and the necessity to trust our governement.
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:37:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <26720@life.ai.mit.edu> benjamin@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Benjamin Renaud) writes:

>Well, the thing is you see, guns will -never- help you against a
>government. The day there is a coup d'etat in the US (which will have
>the support of the army, because it needs it),

That you cannot know.  Many time the armed forces fall in on the side
of the people.  Our armed services have never been used to suppress our
own people.  There are exceptions but they are far from the rule.
I believe that if the people of this country wanted to take down the
government the armed forces would follow.

>n ** you will look rather silly waving you little colt at a BIG TANK !!**

Stranger things have happened when people have courage.  Have you seen any
of the photo of people and tanks that have come out of China and Russia?
Some times the people driving the tanks do not have the will to use them
against brave people.  Some people are willing to die rather than submit
to an undemocratic government.

Consider the number of people in the military and the number of people with
guns.  Say 30 or 40 million armed citizens could take over this country in
a few days.  Look at the LA riots and how long that took to get under control
and remember most of the people involved were unarmed and their numbers were
only in the thousands.

>The US has the biggest (and best of course...) military in the world.
>A few (even a few milion) hunting rifles will do NOTHING against it.

Agian would the miltiary turn on their own people?  Unless it was a local
riot or an isolated action by political far right or far left then I say
they will not have the will.  Look at Russia last year.  Their army did
not have the will to stand up to a united people.

>Now, guns save no one. Look at Europe. If guns save people in the US,
>it's ONLY BECAUSE THE SAME GUNS WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO CRIMINALS.

In WWII guns save Europe from the Nazis.  I will not give up my rights
to being armed I would rather see swift and sure justice to those who
criminals that kill.  

>A gun, like tobacco, is a government approved good which, when used as
>directed, causes death.

It's thinking like your statement above that motivated me to become one of
the 1500 new members a day of the NRA since the LA riots.  I have never owned
a gun in my life but I soon will.

After reading all the anti-gun and gun-control arguments I now understand the
meaning of a bumper sticker I saw years ago.  "You can have my gun when you
take it from my cold dead hand."

>Benjamin.

starbuck
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Washington state legislator's voting records
Date: 14 Aug 92 23:39:46 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

For those registered to vote in the state of Washington:

Courtesy of the Washington Taxpayer's Association, I have a list
of all members of the state House of Representatives, and how each
one voted on the two anti-gun bills (HB 1903 and HB 2537) during
the last legislative session.

If you send me the names of your two representatives, I will let
you know how they voted.

Both of these bills were passed by wide margins in the House, but
were killed in the Senate.  HB 1903 was a trigger-lock bill, which
would have required all FFLs to sell a trigger lock along with each
handgun, or to collect a _signed_ statement from the purchaser
stating that the FFL had explained the uses of a trigger lock, and
that they decline to purchase one anyway.  The legal ramifications
of signing such a statement are left as an exercise to the reader.

HB 2537 was a standard "school zone" bill, which would have
prevented CWP holders from carrying in the vicinity of a school.
(Trivia question: how many schoolchildren have been unjustifiably
shot on school grounds by holders of valid CWPs in the last twenty
years?  Oh well, glad to see the House is working hard to solve
this "problem".)

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Jacklighting (was PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act...)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<20390@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com>
	<1992Aug19.220931.27883@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:41:27 GMT

<In article <1992Aug19.220931.27883@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:

<   In the state of New Mexico, there is a move by various gun clubs to repeal
<   anti-jacklighting legislation because it's "unconstitutional".  Shouldn't
<   the ethical part of the hunting world stand up and tell them they're wrong?

	That's not an accurate statement. I'm not aware of a single 
	gun club in this state that wants to repeal the	NM 
	spotlighting law; there are quite a few people who want
	to *rewrite* the law.

	The law as written in New Mexico is overly vague; it 
	could allow a person who is merely illuminating their 
	own gate lock to be arrested and convicted. Now, it
	has *not* been misused at all that I am aware of, but 
	laws should not be written in such a way as to allow
	arrest and even conviction of the innocent.

	There is a difference between "rewriting" and "repeal", 
	now isn't there?

	
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:19535 talk.politics.animals:7225
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Date: 19 Aug 92 06:06:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Aug19.011514.883@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:
>-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
>-     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
>-      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
>-                           -  Albert Einstein                             -

Which is of course why A. Einstein lent his prestige and name to the
effort (inideed, initaited by a letter with his signature) to build the
most destructive weaponry we have yet devised. Yep, save the bunnies,
but nuke the humans by city-full.


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 2 (was Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 03:43:01 GMT

	I found one point here that goes along with what else I've posted.
Hence I'm responding to it.  No need to post or reply, just think about it.

In <1992Aug18.234015.25204@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:

>In article <4400217@iftccu.boeing.com>, bressler@iftccu.boeing.com
>(Rick Bressler) writes:

>> We're dealing with people here, lets
>> try to keep that in mind.  If you put people into situations where their
>> split second decisions and reactions are matters of life and death
>> people are going to die occasionally.

>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?  I prefer to think of the police
as innocents until they prove otherwise, just as I prefer to be
thought of as an innocent until proven otherwise.  I make this point
because of not only my respect for the police in general, but also
of respect for the gun owner in general.  Both, I feel, handle
themselves in an appropriate manner in nearly all instances, and I'd
like to see this mutual respect continue.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 23:03:08 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
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.

In article <viking.714019331@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
...

>	And I resent the implication that you know it all and are the
>final judge of what needs to be done.  You referenced the Nuremburg trials
>before -- what makes you think the private questions the reasons of the
>general?  You don't.  It's said, you do it, unless you have a very good
>reason to disobey that order.  Tony was given information relevant to his
>job, and made his decisions on that.  Given only that info, what would
>you have done?

Ask for more information? Ask my commander if he's got rocks in his head?
Consider alternative employment opportunities?

A peace officer is not a soldier, and does not operate under military
rules. A police officer can question orders where a soldier cannot. A
police officer operates under legal restraints--and therefore has legal
liabilities--that a soldier does not. And a police officer can always
resign if he doesn't like his orders--an option not open to the soldier.

I think that one of the causes of such tragedies is the increasing
militarization of police procedure as part of the "war on drugs"
rhetoric--a rhetoric that is being taken all too seriously by its
originators. According to this rhetoric, we are at war, and the police are
"soldiers" in that war. In war, all means are acceptable if they bring
victory.  

If the police see themselves as soldiers, then by extension anyone seen as
an enemy by the police are literally enemy soldiers--and who cares if a few
enemy soldiers get killed in the course of an operation? Who even cares if
a few enemy "civilians" (wives and kids of enemies) get killed? This "war"
is a dangerous delusion.



-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:23:31 GMT

In article <cthong.714251494@sfu.ca> cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes:
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>In article <cthong.713584651@sfu.ca> cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes:
>>>it IS the few irresponsible fucks who treat it like a toy or a weapon
>>>intending to go out of their way to harm others that are to blame.
>
>>Fine.  Then why are you so damn concerned with everyone else?
>
>>>but if you can't do anything about these people, as they will always
>>>be around, then do some thing about the guns.
>
>>What if you can't?  Feel free to provide an example of successful
>>gun control, where the introduction of gun control was associated with
>>a significant benefit.
>
>fine . let's discuss singapore shall we?

Okay.

>i've tried to read up on u.s. gun laws (lack of)

Really?  What reference did you use?

>now you go and research singapore. look specifically at crime rates
>and Especially at rate of 1) violent crimes 2) gun related incidents

Okay.  Where do I find those numbers for Singapore BEFORE gun control
as well as AFTER?  Surely if you're going to argue that gun control
reduced crime, the before-after comparison will support that argument.

To be honest, I don't care about gun related incidents.  I care about
murder and injury; the difference between stabbed to death and shot to
death doesn't seem all that important.  (We don't have to theorize
about how substitution "would" work out if we have an example where it
occurred; we can look at how it DID work out.)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu