HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment Myths
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:49:45 GMT

In article <82372@bcsaic.boeing.com>, rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
(Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:

> I shudder to think of it, but you may be right.  My position is that the 
> Supremes have a perfect right to uphold your RKBA, but they just don't seem
> interested in it.  The current Court, however, is substantially different
> from previous ones.  If you can't get the RKBA interpretation you want 
> from this one, then you might as well give it up.  If you can, then I really
> will feel compelled to support the repeal of the 2nd.

The current Court hardly seems to be a liberal force (in the civil
liberties sense, not the common modern usage).  I hear that they have
supported the "civil seizure" laws, this is not the act of a freedom-
loving, liberal Court.

-- 
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
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 23:40:12 EDT
From: Lawrence D. Matson <LDM102@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Update: Seattle Gun Buy-Back
 <1992Sep8.173408.23174@SSD.intel.com>

In article <1992Sep8.173408.23174@SSD.intel.com>, hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
says:
>
>In article <1992Sep04.204202.17238@microsoft.com>, joeha@microsoft.com (Joseph
>Harper) writes:
>|> Further news of the Seattle Buy-back program.
>
>[description of/advertising for the buyback deleted]
>
>|> The vouchers, which do not require a signature to cash,
>|> are redeemable at any branch of First Interstate Bank.
>
>Ooo, keen!  If I were a mugger, here is a source of cash that has just
>identified  >itself as being disarmed.
>
>Wonder if there have been a rash of muggings a few blocks away from the       t
>precinc >houses?
>
   Easy to case out potential victims...just watch the news or read the
paper!                                          -Larry
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Lawrence D. Matson    |    "It is well that war is so terrible      |
|Dept. of Geosciences  |     or we should grow too fond of it."      |
|Penn State University |                         -Robert E. Lee      |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:20940 rec.martial-arts:12165
From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,rec.martial-arts
Subject: Re: A little on self defense...
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:12:08 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Reply-To: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

>My assumption is that the attacker(s) is no dummy, and has some strength,
>speed, and skill himself.  I believe this to freqently be the case.

Not always an accurate assumption, but always a safe one.  Even if the
scum has nothing going for him but brute force and a mean streak, he 
can get lucky and do you a lot of damage.  

One other reason to study MA (which I define pretty broadly) is to give
subliminal clues to the scum that if they drag you down to their level,
you can operate effectively there.  Scum respect that.  They don't
respect the things that are valued by most of us middle-class keyboard-
clackers.  In fact, they go out of their way to publicly DISrespect
those things, if they think they can get away with it.  But if they 
think you're able and willing to break kneecaps and smash teeth when
provoked, maybe they won't mess with you.

Then again, maybe they'll whack you from behind and take your wallet
before you wake up.  Never can tell.  

--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 04:13:44 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.002024.17105@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>The "well-regulated militia" may not be just any old yahoo who can pull
>>a trigger, but "the people" includes every old yahoo, even fingerless ones.
>>The right is not restricted to the militia, but belongs to the people.

>Then what is the purpose and effect of the first clause, pray tell?

To encourage the federal government to train and arm the militia. If the
anti-federalists had had their way, it would have been a strict 
requirment and there would have been no regular army to use instead of
the militia. Unfortunately, the text of the Amendemnt was written by
a Federalist, edited by a Federalist packed House committee and passed by
a Federalist controled Congress. The Federalists wanted to meet the 
anti-federalist objections without placing additional restrictions on
the government.

>>The right of the people shall not be infringed, in order that there be
>>enough of them around to form a militia when it is needed.

>If they're all psychotic survivalist nuts with a paranoid suspicion of
>established government, and armed to the hilt, how the hell are you going
>to round them up to form a militia "when it is needed"?

This is exactly why militias were so popular an institution: The governemnt
could only use this military force with the active support of the
people. If the government were having trouble rounding up people to
serve in the militia, then the people probably didn't support the use
of military force. If the people accepted and agreed with the cause,
they would voluntarily come forward to militia musters.

This is, in my opinion, far superior to a standing army which can be
used _regardless_ of the popular will.

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: hurricane aftermath
Date: 5 Sep 92 01:32:51 GMT

In <FF98C16F4E1F600D0C@VXC.UNCWIL.EDU> PATE@VXC.UNCWIL.EDU (BILL PATE, ADMIN. SERVICES, PATE@VXC.UNCWIL.EDU) writes:

>NBC had an interesting program last night called DATELINE. They interviewed
>several people in the Miami area in their wrecked neighborhoods, including
>one of their local correspondants. Some interesting shots of homeowners
>patroling with firearms in the absence of any law enforcement.

An article in another newsgroup contained a firsthand report of a police
officer who had "stopped by to make sure we were armed."  Heh heh.  No
legitimate use, eh?


-- 
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!
id <m0mTadn-0000GCC@crash.cts.com>; Sat, 12 Sep 92 09: 48 PDT
	id <ic35086@pro-amber.cts.com>; Sat, 12 Sep 92 09: 44 PDT
From: rsopicki@pro-amber.cts.com (Randy Sopicki)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: nra bbs open now!!!
Date: 12 Sep 92 16:44:23 GMT
Organization: ProLine [pro-amber] -- Spring Valley, Ca

Will you folks be networking any topics?

ProLine:  rsopicki@pro-amber
Internet: rsopicki@pro-amber.cts.com
UUCP:     crash!pro-amber!rsopicki
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lambert@cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: CS&E, Uni of NSW, Australia
	<LAMBERT.92Sep15160023@cello23.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<1992Sep15.173706.25087@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 16 Sep 92 13:15:40

>>>>> On Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:37:06 GMT, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) said:
> Excuse me, no statistically significant decrease associated with 
> gun control laws (the drop in Australia was statistically significant
> but part of a decade-long decline, not associated with the gun control
> laws passed half-way through the decline.)

We've been around on this before, and all it does is impress me with
the prediliction of some pro-gun folks for self-delusion on this
topic.  (I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but it seems to me that many
people suspend their powers of reason on this issue.)


Here are the NSW homicide rates from 1910-1920:
2.6 2.7 2.4 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.1 1.9 1.4 2.7 2.7
Care to demonstrate a decline?

Tim
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Gritz  (was Re: Idaho (was Premeditated Murder
Date: 5 Sep 1992 05:54:45 GMT
Reply-To: kossack@qvi.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: We are RU

In article <larryd.715278478@milton> larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto) writes:
- >BTW, are we gonna talk about that fellow in Idaho and the government tactics
- >used or is it considerd "OK" to hunt him down like a dog because he is
- >a white supremist?
- 
- Well, so far they killed his dog, killed his 13 year old son (who was armed
- at the time), and according to the account told to Gritz, shot and killed
- his wife while she was standing in the doorway holding her 8 month old baby.  

	Is this the same Gritz who is running for President?  
                                     (Populist, I think ...)   

-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  Don't Miss Meals 
  kossack@qvi.com  |       Bag Your Diet
  +1 713 240 2073  |            Eat More Fast Food 
  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 00:14:04 GMT

In article <BtI5Lz.5I9@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com> wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:
>[Note followup.]
>
>In <1992Aug24.054700.8995@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>If memory serves, "Fletcher's Political Works", pub'd in 1749,
>>>defines a "well-regulated militia" as a body of armed citizens
>>>not under control of an executive (when under control of an
>>>executive, presumably they are an army).  
>>Bully for Fletcher. Unfortunately for the NRA, the 2nd doesn't read
>>"A well-regulated militia (as defined by Fletcher) being necessary..."
>
>Unfortunately for you, you don't understand that what Fletcher did was
>to set down how terms were understood in the period (much closer to the
>writing of the Constitution than we are today).  

Why should I accept Fletcher as an authority on the meaning of the words,
Russ, any more than any other scholar? What's so special about him?

In fact, why should I even CONSULT Fletcher's works, when the meaning of
the Amendment is crystal clear (to me, at least), and doesn't require any 
necrotelepathy at all to "disambiguate" it?

>Now, we can argue as to why they wanted this, but the intent is clear,
>and until revoked, it *is* the law of the land.

Yes, it is the law of the land. Both clauses. Until the first clause is
specifically repealed, it HAS to have meaning. The NRA interpretation 
would rob it all useful meaning, and is therefore an implicit repeal.
Since when is the NRA empowered to repeal parts of Constitutional
Amendments? Why didn't I get a memo on this? :-)

>>>My understanding of the use of the phrase "well-regulated" is
>>>that we would call it "well-trained" or "smoothly functioning"
>>>today.
>>Which implies some sort of organizational body training and maintaining
>>them, IMO. Not just any old yahoo who can pull a trigger.
>
>As a matter of fact, elsewhere in the Constitution, Congress is
>given the power of arming and disciplining (training) the militia.

Good point, although if you're referring to Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 
16, that reads as giving the Congress the power to _prescribe_ training 
methods, but leaves the States the actual authority to _administer_ the
training. Slight distinction there.

The Article I stuff is rather moot anyway, since the 2nd Amendment can
override its provisions, if that is the only reasonable interpretation 
possible. Personally, I read the 2nd as permitting "citizen militias" not 
under the direct control of any governmental subdivision. However, I still 
see two irreducible requirements:

	A) That the militia be "well-regulated"

	B) That it be necessary for the security of a free state

Both of these, together, seem to rule out the "any yahoo who can pull a
trigger" NRA interpretation...

							- Kevin
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Seattle Buy Back & First Interstate Bank
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:01:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep5.125650.5065@stortek.com>, vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak) writes:

>  Why did these guards end up dead?  Because it is First Interstate Banks
>  policy that all guards MUST BE UNARMED.  No nasty guns allowed in the
>  bank.  The killer shot one guard in the sub-basement, where the killer
>  entered the building, and the other 3 up in the guard room.

>  First Interstate Bank
>  has stated that it is STILL their policy to have unarmed guard and
>  that they will not change their policy.

Wow, they're not only doofuses to have the policy, but they're complete 
imbeciles to advertise it.  I bet they get a LOT of exciting visits from
new "customers" in the next few months.
-- 

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: rrw@philabs.philips.com (Roger White)
Subject: Re: Seattle Buy-Back Update
Organization: Philips Laboratories, Briarcliff Manor, NY.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 12:57:07 GMT

In article <82472@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>In article 3583@bcstec.ca.boeing.com, nick@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Nick Leiterman) writes:
>>I am not in favor of gun buyback programs,  but I am not totaly against it
>>I think it is a waste of money, but its not my money they are wasting.  
>>The worst thing about it is all the press it gets for the anti's.
>
>I agree with you that these programs are a waste of time, if their only purpose
>is to reduce crime and tragedy by reducing gun availability.  I think that the
>amount of money spent was around $65,000, and only about 1,200 guns were 
>collected before the program went broke.  On the other hand, who can say?  It 
>is conceivable that, were it not for this program, a child might have gotten
>his hands on one of those guns and killed another child.  Is $65,000 worth it 
>to avoid that kind of tragedy?  But, from a cold statistical point of view, 
>such programs do almost nothing to reduce crime or gun availability.

What if?  What a crock.  What if the little old lady who turned in her handgun
could have used it to prevent herself from being raped and killed when she was
mugged the next day?  Get real.  It's also cute how you imply that you, a self
proclaimed "anti," is a warm, caring person while we "pros," are cold hearted
and don't care if children are killed (or anyone else for that matter).

>
>The point that Nick makes about getting "press" is important.  As one of the
>"anti's", I feel that such programs serve to dramatize the role of guns in
>our society.  To show that not everyone who owns a gun is happy with it.  For
>some people, the possession of the gun alone was greater than their fear of
>criminals.  Gun possession, for these people, went from the lesser of two evils
>to the greater of two evils.  

Or maybe they just wanted the 50 bucks, huh?  Maybe they even went out and
stole a gun to get the $50.  You seem to be really good at making up
scenarios, give it a try.  You'll probably come up with something like, 
someones kid was just shot by an NRA member and they need the $50 to pay for
the extensive surgery.

>The question is, how many gun owners really want
>to live in a society where gun possession is unrestricted?  NRA propaganda 
>would have us believe that they all do.

To be as polite as I can, you are full of crap.  Show me one piece of NRA
literature, or "propaganda," that says that!  Just one.  You really should try
to educate yourself on this issue.  Lord knows you've been popping off on it
for long enough.

Rog
From: clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman)
Subject: Re: Seattle Buy-Back Update
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:33:36 GMT

In article <82472@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>The point that Nick makes about getting "press" is important.  As one of the
>"anti's", I feel that such programs serve to dramatize the role of guns in
>our society.  To show that not everyone who owns a gun is happy with it.  For
>some people, the possession of the gun alone was greater than their fear of
>criminals.  Gun possession, for these people, went from the lesser of two evils
>to the greater of two evils.  The question is, how many gun owners really want
>to live in a society where gun possession is unrestricted?  NRA propaganda would
>have us believe that they all do.

First, how do you know that a single household went from N guns to 0 during
the buyback? Perhaps people with good guns got rid of one worthless one and
kept the rest.  Perhaps the only households that went down to 0 already had
0 WORKING guns in the first place and just turned in inoperable guns. So,
"gun possession" did not become "the greater of two evils" in the minds
of people who turned in guns they knew were inoperable, or who kept at least
one gun in the house after turning in 1 or more guns. How many households
fit your description versus mine? We have no idea.  So the "good press" is
based on speculation regarding motives, and regarding the current state of
those households.

Second, we know for a fact that many gun owners don't want unrestricted access
to guns in this country. No doubt a large number of gun owners would be happy
to keep black people from owning guns, and often support gun control along
those lines, now and in the past. They get to keep their own guns, which they
can better afford than poor blacks, anyway.  Such racist motives are well
known in the history of gun control, and have been mentioned by the NRA.
This does not fit your claim that the NRA tries to get people to believe
that "all gun owners" want unrestricted firearms access in this country.
The Morton Grove city councilmen are gun owners, and they certainly don't
want such unrestricted access, nor do Carl Rowan, Warren Burger, Arthur
Ochs Sulzberger, John Lindsay, Jane Fonda, etc.  All of these have been
mentioned pointedly by the NRA.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is seldom that any liberty is lost all at once." David Hume
|||  clc5q@virginia.edu (Clark L. Coleman)
From: king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Arch vs. Knee-jerk (was Re: Have you heard of the Religious Left?)
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:33:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, San Diego

rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:
>In <BuL2Gs.G6H@encore.com> Roger Collins states:
>|Seeing liberals preach about how immoral conservatives are for not
>|wanting to soak the working folks to provide well meaning, but
>|disastrous, hand-outs to the poor makes me wonder how come I've
>|never heard the term religious left?
>
>Simple; for the same reason you only hear about "arch-conservatives"
>and not "arch-liberals."

Maybe you don't hear about Arch-Liberals because the term "Liberal" is
damning enough by itself? :-)

But seriously, what would you say about these terms, in common if not
news reportage use:

Knee-Jerk Liberal
Bleeding-Heart Liberal
Tax-and-Spend Liberal
Pinko
FemiNazi
Eco-terrorist
Technocrat (especially for Dukakis)
Neo-Liberal
Strident Liberal (used in the Obit for Rep. Ted Weiss)

Heck, I'd say that "Archconservative" sounds pretty distinguished next
to these.  As far as "Religious Right" goes, I've heard this used by
Republicans to describe a faction in their own party, and I'm not sure
the labelled group would categorically object.  Not that this should be
the sole criterion for using a label, of course.

jking
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Judge, Jury, Executioner In One Easy Step (Was: Why a sawed-off shotgun?)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:37:48 GMT

<In article <fbPY02lS20ew01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> bws20@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Brian W Simmons) writes:

<   In article: <9209072023.AA08588@dg-rtp.dg.com>

<   Bill Meyers signs off with:
<   --------------------------------------------------------------------------
<   #It has come to my attention that Mr Weaver's "crime" was having a shotgun
<   #barrel too short by *** .1 inch ***. Certainly justification for all the
<   #bloodshed that has and will occur over the matter. [sarcasm off]
<   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

<It seems to me that murdering a federal law enforcement official is
<sufficient reason for bloodshed.  

	Do you know this to be true? Were you there?

<It seems unfortunate to me Weaver
<was not slain before he managed to breed.  The only thing worse than
<a racist asshole is a _religious_ racist asshole, except perhaps a
<religious racist asshole who may pass his perverted beliefs on to
<another generation. [No sarcasm to turn off]

	So, anyone whom bws regards as "a religious racist **hole"
	should be summarily shot, is that correct?

	There's a name for this form of "government".

<   **************************************************************************
<   bws20@amail.amdahl.com      the human heart holds hidden treasures,
<   brian wesley simmons          in secret kept, in silence sealed
<   *************************************************************************

	Simmons "hidden treasure" seems to be a desire for special
	"camps" where those who disagree with him can be sent....


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment Myths
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:39:05 GMT

In article <82355@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard
Wojcik,snake) writes:

   In fact, this only underscores my point that you guys are in the
   "original intent" camp, a method of legal interpretation that has
   been largely discredited.  I again propose the works of the
   Constitutional scholar Leonard Levy for a detailed refutation of
   "original intent": Original Intent and the Framer's Constitution.
   Here is a passage from his writings (p. 341):

   "The Second Amendment is as vague as it is ambiguous.  Some think
   it upholds the collective right of state militias to bear arms,
   while others, probably more accurate in so far as original intent
   is concerned, argue that it protects the right of individuals to
   keep and bear arms..."

   As you can see, he's no HCI lacky.  Another excellent work on the
   problems with "original intent" is Stephen Macedo in his
   libertarian monograph: The New Right v. the Constitution (1987).

   Andy Freeman has stated that the RKBA folks are not really in the
   "original intent" crowd, but he fails to back up his claim.  And
   others disagree.

Humph.  Taking one side of an argument and trying to defend it by
simply saying that the other side is "largely discredited" is very
poor argument indeed.

Some RKBA advocates are in favor of original intent, and some not.
The issues are related, but not identified.  Andy Freeman is correct
that "all RKBA folks are not really in the 'original intent' crowd";
it is you, and you alone, who extended this to mean "No RKBA folks are
in the 'original intent' crowd".

If you want better ammunition, try Robert Bork's book, "The Tempting
of America".  Here is one of the foremost supporters of original
intent, who has expressed the opinion that the second amendment does
NOT convey an individual right to keep and bear arms.  (To be fair to
Mr. Bork, he has also explicitly stated that he has not studied the
manner in any case before him or for any article, and has stated that
after such study his opinion might change).

In addition, stating that the Second Amendment is vague and ambiguous
does not make it so.

You can do better than this.  Really.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
Newsgroups: 2,3,talk.politics.guns,fido.rtkba