HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods and rights
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:23:43 GMT

In article <1740@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.051942.22743@athena.mit.edu> sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
>>   ... [ previous notes, responses, and (presumably MA regs) deleted ] ...
>>
>>  3. You CANNOT purchase handguns or ammunition for handguns with
>>     merely an FID card.  You CANNOT carry a handgun outside your
>>     residence or business with merely an FID card.
>
>How about COMPONENTS?  Would a LTC be required to get primers, bullets,
>in pistol calibers and weights, bullet molds in pistol calibers for
>those who wish to cast their own?

The bullets themselves might be a problem, but I think the primers and
molds would not be restricted.  Incidently, fully loaded ammo is
available to private citizens (non-FFl) via mail order.  This is illegal
(pistol ammo) without a LTC, but it's not a high risk activity.  Another
way to get pistol ammo with simply an FID is to buy a carbine like
the Thompson 45ACP.  If you can prove you own a pistol-caliber rifle,
you CAN buy the ammo with just an FID.

>Perhaps a MA resident could clarify what rights one has recognized in
>that state, and what rights one has if they are travelling through the
>state to an event or destination in some other state regarding firearms.
>I have even heard of folks getting arrested during an airline flight
>changeover, when the security folks see a firearms tag on checked luggage,
>noting that it contains a handgun in condition with FAA regs for checked
>luggage, and use it as evidence to arrest the passenger for having an
>unregistered/unlicensed handgun, in violation of Bartly-Fox (I think),
>resulting in loss of the gun, much money spent in legal fees to beat
>the charge.  How about someone DRIVING through?  Or must one drive/have
>flights AROUND or avoiding the state to be at all safe?

Supposedly the federal Volkmer FOPA protects out-of-staters driving
through MA to a different state if the gun is locked in the trunk
apart from the ammo, but you may be arrested anyway.  There is
no mandatory registration requirement for guns, but you must have a LTC
to carry.  Incidentally all LTC's are equivalent from the penalty point
of view; "all lawful purposes" = "target" because of Act 511.  Your
chief can still revoke your permit for carrying against  the purpose,
however.
From: deanp@hplsla.hp.com (Dean Payne)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 07:28:29 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: canada and the u.s.
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Restrictive Clauses
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 13:45:38 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.220426.20758@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:


>It is a long-standing rule of statutory construction that the meaning chosen
>for a given law should acknowledge that every phrase therein has SOME sort of 
>contributory meaning to the whole. In this instance, one cannot read the first
>clause of the 2nd as being non-restrictive UNLESS one is prepared to interpret
>it as redundant idle chit-chat, and therefore to break the established rule. 
>This rule is usually waived in the case of mere preambles or "mission 
>statements", of course, but the 2nd Amendment doesn't qualify as either of 
>those. I therefore see no reason to refrain from applying the rule in this 
>case.

The introductory clause that the Brady Bunch is so fond of mis-interpreting 
IS a mission statement, and is referred to as "the preamble" in a number of 
scholarly works.  (See Levinson, "The Embarrassing Second Amendment," Yale 
Law Review, for one, there are others.)

>Like I said, I'd be fairly sympathetic to a universal RKBA, but I just don't
>think the 2nd is up to the task as written. Please propose another Amendment, 
>instead of trying to twist the 2nd to your political agenda. Constitutional
>revisionist tinkering tends to make me uneasy...

This is not revisionism.  It is the collectivist interpretation, a 1960's 
era concept, that is revisionism.  
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Sarcasm or Belief?
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:11:25 GMT

In article <5207@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

>In article <archer.198@utkux1.utk.edu>, archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>> >>The issue of gun control legislation is an attempt at a direct
>> >>method of controlling crime

>> >This is some new meaning of the word "direct" with which I'm not familiar,
>> >since guns do not commit crimes, nor are they necessary to commit them, nor
>> >are the vast majority of guns ever used in crimes.  Just what does "direct"
>> >mean to you?

>> A "direct" method would be one that attacks the tools of crime or the 
>> situation that allows it, rather than root causes.
>> 
>> "Direct" crime control laws include gun control, restricted access to 
>> locksmith's tools, requiring increased lighting outside homes, etc.

>Are you saying "direct" purposely with quotes to denote sarcasm,
>or do you really believe this?

Neither.  While I think that it is possible to mitigate casual crime with 
direct methods, they are minimally effective at best.  For example, I law 
requiring all purses, packages, and bags to be kept in the trunk or under 
the seat of a car would effectively eliminate "smash and grab" crimes, if 
enforced.  However, the criminals would migrate to something effective 
rather than get productive jobs.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: for your reading enjoyment pt 1
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 14:42:27 GMT

In article <36517@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> msn@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Mike 'HK G3ZF Full-Auto' Newsome) writes:
>For ya'lls reading pleasure...
>
>	ALLIGATOR Tue. 07-21-92 front page.
>
>	"It's like carrying a loaded gun in your pocket," Lombardi
>	said.  "You think you're protected and what you end up doing
>	is shooting your friend"
>
>				John Lombardi
>				UF President
>
You are going to write a letter to the editor, aren't you!?!  Come on,
do it!

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton,soc.women
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for guns and domestic violence
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 05:03:35 GMT

In article <1493@cogsci.ucsd.EDU> king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:
>I never said a no-firearms fight would be fair, but I would suggest
>that it is somewhat less likely to end with somebody being dead.  You
>could dispute that point, I suppose.

This sounds like the reasoning of Rev. Brockway, of the United
Methodist Church (May, 1977 _ENGAGE-SOCIAL ACTION FORUM_), who thinks
that if an attacker is only going to rape (yes, I know your scenarios
are not about rape but I think the reasoning has similarities), then it
is the victim's duty to submit rather than do anything that might
imperil her rapist's life.

"criminals are members of the larger community no less than are
others.
... it is equally wrong for the victim to kill them, save in those
extremely rare circumstances when the unambiguous alternative is one
own's death..."

The Presbyterians think it is morally wrong for a victim to take
an attacker's life under ANY circumstances.

>>>serious problem in this country, but I don't see how a lack of some
>>>reasonable waiting period is costing us more lives than it could save.
>>
>>Try these ideas:
>>
>>Women almost never initiate violence.
>>Men already have all the "ARMS" they need to commit violence
>>against women.
>
>How does this help things?  Or are you suggesting a complete ban on
>firearms sales to men?  That would be novel, but I wouldn't support

No, not at all. Since men already have the means to commit rape and
other forms of violence on women, what is needed is a liberalization
of the ability to buy and carry firearms for women. Restricting men
won't make any useful difference. Empowering women will.

>Unfortunately, I have also decided
>that the NRA is much more interested in promoting its weird gun policy
>objectives than in making people safe shooters, or insuring that only
>qualified people get to own them.  But what to do?  The present

Three points.

The NRA does promote gun safety education with free materials for
schools and such. (such materials contain the message "if you see a gun
DON'T TOUCH. LEAVE THE AREA. TELL AN ADULT.") Many schools turn them
down because they are "from that nasty NRA".

The NRA does much of the firearms training in the US.

If the gun banners weren't so active, the NRA would have more resources
to spend on safety and training. That was the reason they were founded
and that was their focus until the gun banners started up and the ACLU
refused to lift a finger.

What specifically does the NRA do that you object to? You may find that
some of the things you have been told are misinformation.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: drs@col.hp.com (Don Simmons)
Subject: Re: heard this on the news.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:59:31 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

      BOY - What a hypocritical department - 

      Why does willie need a permit and gun ???

      Why doesn't he depend opn the officers in blue to
      protect him like everyone else !?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Gun Control Is Immoral
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 12:51:05 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.164223.4715@unislc.uucp> jdw@unislc.uucp (James Warren) writes:


>As you can tell, I am pro-gun.  When it comes to abortion I am pro-choice,
>but in my own case I would only consider abortion in the worst of 
>circumstances. (One possible case which comes to mind is in the case of a 
>woman raped by an AIDS infected criminal.)

Likewise, though I am pro-gun,  I would only consider a gun in the worst of 
circumstances.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: weapon identification
To: tighe@convex.com
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:33:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.034735.11445@convex.com> tighe@convex.com writes:
>fjohnson@kinks.rutgers.edu (Floyd Johnson) writes:
>>Do any of you know the make and caliber of a weapon called the "Street
>>Sweeper". All I can surmise is that it's an automatic
>>"intermediate"-somewhere in size between a pistol and a rifle.
>
>It is a 12 ga. shotgun manufactured by Cobray. It is based on a South
>African weapon. It has a 12 round drum magazine. Unless you are Arnold, it
>requires two hands to operate (like a 'tommy gun'). Semi-auto of course.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.  It is a DOUBLE-ACTION revolving cylinder 12 shot
shotgun.  It doesn't have a drum and isn't a semi-auto.  It is just a
12 gauge revolver.  (The cylinder is turned with a spring; the gun has
to be wound up.  Said cylinder does not swing out; there's a loading
gate and ejection rod just like that found on most single-action
revolvers.)

There's an NFA version with a short-barrel.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<ATAYLOR.92Jul22132948@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<1992Jul24.002050.16717@dscomsf.desy.de>
	<1992Jul24.015907.1251@adobe.com>
	<1992Jul24.042911.18398@dscomsf.desy.de>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:24:10 GMT

<In article <1992Jul24.042911.18398@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:

<   The Canadians have a competent and well resourced police force to
<   enforce their gun control laws which have the support of their
<   population.

	Huh? You mean that it isn't the gun control laws but
	the police that that affect crime?
	
	You mean that the opinion of the citizens affects crime?

<   |>Also, do Switzerland's neighbors have problems with Swiss guns making
<   |>a run for the border too?

<   A Swiss serviceman is issued with a rifle which he has to keep in his
<   house. He is also issued with ammo. He is responsible for both. If he is
<   found to be a round of ammo short he is in trouble, if he opens the box
<   he is in trouble in fact.  If he looses his gun then all hell is going
<   to descend upon him and he is going to get posted to do guard duty on
<   top of Mont Blanc for a month or something.

	You mean, merely owning a machinegun doesn't make someone
	a criminal?

<   Also an assault rifle is not exactly the ideal weapon for knocking off
<   grocery stores. They are big suckers, difficult to stick under your
<   jumper.

	Funny, those are exactly the rifles that the Democratic
	party wants to ban. 

	You mean, there's something more than crime control
	at work in the Democratic platform?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: weapon identification
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 22:12:29 GMT

In article <Jul.28.10.47.24.1992.1348@kinks.rutgers.edu> fjohnson@kinks.rutgers.edu (Floyd Johnson) writes:

>Do any of you know the make and caliber of a weapon called the "Street
>Sweeper". All I can surmise is that it's an automatic
>"intermediate"-somewhere in size between a pistol and a rifle.

     I think its a shotgun, but I'm not a gun tech expert.


===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.individualism
From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: A Waiting Period for Free Speech
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:19:40 GMT

In article <m+hmbpp.tcmay@netcom.com> tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) writes:

>A MODEST PROPOSAL FOR WAITING PERIODS ON FREE SPEECH

[Proposal for waiting periods on free speech deleted.]

     I've also seen a good article on "The Collectivist Interpretation
of the First Amendment."

     Amazing how what people consider "reasonable" with one right looks 
silly when applied to another.



===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Direct
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:13:19 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.202457.15525@gozer.mv.com> klm@gozer.mv.com (Kevin L. McBride) writes:

>archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:

>> "Direct" crime control laws include gun control, restricted access to 
>> locksmith's tools, requiring increased lighting outside homes, etc.

>This is laughable at best.  Similar to the problem with defining
>"assault weapons", just who is going to get to define what
>"locksmith's tools" are?

>A friend of mine once locked his keys in his car.  It happens, right?
>He borrowed a screwdriver from someone so that he might attempt to
>open his own car.  Sound reasonable so far?  The police showed up and
>arrested him for possession of burglar's tools, a screwdriver, because
>he was trying to break into his own car.

>I'd hate to see what happens once "locksmith's tools" are
>"restricted."  Will I need a permit to go into the grocery store and
>buy a block of paraffin wax?  Will I have to register my grinding
>wheel?  Will somebody come and confiscate my cordless drill?

>ANYTHING can be used as a tool of crime and the quicker you realize
>that, the better off we'll all be.  You cannot control the tools of
>crime, you can only make a valiant effort to control the criminals
>themselves.

>Same thing goes for guns.

>BTW, one can make a really nasty "assault weapon" out of a roll of
>duct tape and a Swiss Army knife.  So nasty, in fact, that you'd wish
>you'd been assaulted with a firearm instead.  Wanna ban those too?

I am a practicing libertarian, and I hold people, not inanimate objects 
responsable for thier actions.  I don't want ANYTHING banned.  I was merely 
trying to come up with a definition of "direct" crime control.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Waiting periods and rights
Date: 27 Jul 92 22:40:33 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Jul24.051942.22743@athena.mit.edu>, sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:

> >> Handguns may also be possessed with just the FID card; you just can't
> >> carry them with the FID.

> >This isn't what the gun dealer tells me.  He won't sell one if you don't
> >have the carry permit.

> The FID allows you to:

>     *Possess* long guns, *handguns*, and ammunition of all types IN
>      YOUR PLACE OF LEGAL RESIDENCE or in your place of legal business.

> The LTC allows you to:

>     *Purchase* handguns, and ammunition for handguns.

>   1. You can legally possess a handgun in your house or your family
>      business with merely an FID card.

>   3. You CANNOT purchase handguns or ammunition for handguns with
>      merely an FID card. 

One wonders, then, how you imagine that one (legally) obtains the 
in-residence handgun in the first place?
-- 

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: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: buy-back
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:13:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.181512.12492@microsoft.com> alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:

>archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:

>>stedee@auto-trol.com (Steve Deemer) writes:
>>>Never heard of people -stealing- guns for buyback programs, 

>>Yep.  It's a fairly regular occurance.  When a "no questions asked" buy back 
>>go into effect, burglaries go up, because you have a 100% safe "fence" to   
>>buy your booty.

>I have heard conflicting claims on this point.  Do you have any
>references for your assertion?

My reference will be coming over Friday night, and I will find out HIS 
reference.  It is most likly anecdotal, from his experience as a peace 
officer in Knoxville.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: Kevin Langston <langston@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Foreign Interest in the US RKBA 
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Originator: langston@eugene.convex.com
Reply-To: langston@convex.COM (Kevin Langston)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Technical Operations
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:43:39 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.

jglarson@watmsg.waterloo.edu (Johan Larson) writes:
>
>Mandatory voting seems like a reasonable duty of citizenship;
>I think it is folly to expect rights without undertaking 
>burdens and responsibilities.

    What benefit(s) do you expect to see from everyone voting?

-- 
----   Kevin Langston   langston@convex.com   langston@frontier.lonestar.org
----   Mitchell's Law of Committees: Any simple problem can be made insoluble
----   if enough meetings are held to discuss it.
From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: BIG GUNS AND LITTLE REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS...
Date: 30 Jul 92 23:26:02 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1992Jul27.175025.173@lrc.edu> blosser_cy@lrc.edu writes:
>Man is inherently wicked and prone to sudden acts of random violence against 
>his neighbor...a puny wimp with a small dick feels macho when he has a steel
[ridiculous ranting deleted]
>reproductive organs. If we all discarded our guns & got rid of all our bombs
>and disposed of every stupid weapon we own we'd get along *much* better with 
>each other. Perhaps we'd even have peace, love & happiness around the world.

Most of this is pure horseshit.  Weapons do not cause violence.  PEOPLE do.
But you must be one of the bleeding hearts who believes that no one should
be held responsible for their actions, eh?


>Besides...flowers are a *lot* nicer than guns. 

They smell better, but they are pretty useless at the range.


>So get rid of yours today.

Not on your life (and certainly not on mine).


>Peace!

As long as *everyone* is peaceful, yes.

Mike Ruff
U.T. Austin
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods and rights
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:55:35 GMT

cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell) writes:

>In article <1992Jul27.192636.26135@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul27.172655.21544@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell) writes:
>>
>>>Get real.  Nobody important has ever really proposed waiting periods
>>>this long.  It's like quoting the Klan on civil rights and saying,
>>>
>>Well, the People's Republic of California started out with a
>>Brady Bill-like 7 day waiting period.  When it did absolutely
>>nothing to stop crime (surprise, surprise), they lengthened
>>the wait to 15 days.  The argument that some slimeball politico
>>may try to pass warm-fuzzy-feel-good legislation extending
>>this wait to 30 days has merit.  After all, they *did* increase
>>it from 7 to 15 days, didn't they?

>I'm less than overwhelmed by your crackpot-oriented argument.
>We're talking about 2555 days = 7 years here, not 30 days.
>Read the whole post again or "sit down and shut up," as the fearful
>leader says.

If you don't like California, try Chicago.  A handgun must be registered
to be legally owned.  Chicago does not accept registration forms (or even
give out blank forms) and hasn't for several years.  That sort of equals
a defacto ban on legal handguns doesn't it?  

The Brady bill had something like that in it too.  The waiting period
doesn't start until the *police* acknowledge receipt of the request.
Since they are not legally mandated to acknowledge receipt, what do you 
suppose it means if the local pols instruct the cops to toss the requests
in the garbage?

--
Larry                                   |   Thunder makes all the noise;
                                        |   lightning gets the job done.
larryd@milton.washington.edu
I have my opinion; the university has its own.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns