HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: davidb@inmet.inmet (David Barton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Brown on Guns (short)
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:15:30 GMT
	<22083@goofy.Apple.COM> <1992Apr10.014517.4851@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Organization: Intermetrics, Inc.

In article <1992Apr10.014517.4851@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (wayne john warf) writes:

   >By the way, before any of you gun fanatics go off half-cocked, or
   >half-brained as the case may be (sometimes it's hard to tell), I
   >am NOT advocating gun control, only responding to an exaggerated
   >attack on Brown.
   >
   >David Casseres
   >Exclaimer: Wow!

   I see, if you agree with him you're reasonable; if not, you're a
   fanatic.  No point in discussing it then, eh?

Oh, please.  Mr. Casseres was simply identifying the issue he was
addressing, not saying that anyone who disagreed with him was a "gun
fanatic".  He uses that characterization for those who respond to a
(perhaps somewhat tangential) point with an automatic reaction.

I disagree with David Casseres about many things, gun control among
them.  For all that, don't tar him with the Aussie brush.  He
sometimes discusses issues substantively; as a gun control advocate
who can write reasonable posts, he is a pearl beyond price on this
group.

We too often spend our time generating heat in response to Aussie
flames, rather than discussing substantive issues.  For this reason, I
tend to jump to the defense of those who can discuss things with at
least a simulation of reason (whether they want my blasted defense or
not; often they do not).  If you want to take Mr. Casseres on, please
do him the favor that other gun control advocates refuse to do for
you: address the issue that he is talking about.

					David Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jca@crash.cts.com (John C. Archambeau)
Subject: Re: WILL THE GVT IMPLANT OUR CHILDREN???
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 21:08:23 GMT
Keywords: Big Brother

I look at it both ways.  Child stealers and molesters are a very
organized bunch of criminals.  If I can locate the transmitter, so can
the professional child stealers and molesters.  Since I currently am
employed by a school district, I have been made aware of how clever
child molesters and stealers can be.

The farthest I'd go with my kids (when and if I'm a father) is having 
them fingerprinted and photographed on a regular basis.  When DNA ID
becomes common, I will do that for my kids as well. But only to aide 
law enforcement if the child stealer or molester does get lucky.

But I will never subject my child to being put on a leash equivalent to
house arrest like that.  If I don't trust my child and have to go to 
that extreme then I should not be a parent.

The key to everything is education.  I will educate my kids to not
trust strangers and a standard set of channels that are done when 
and if something happens to me and/or my future spouse (whomever 
that may be) involving trusted friends, co-workers and relatives.

I will also educate my children to handle firearms.  Mommy and daddy can
use a gun and my kids are at the age where they can handle a .32 or .38,
so it's their turn now.  As they get older, I will teach them current
local law regardling the use of lethal force and self-defense.

Nothing would make me more proud than a future daughter of mine
defending the home with justifiable use of a gun when I'm away.  
--

     // JCA

 /*
 ** ARPA    : jadpc!thewall!jca@nosc.mil | "Perot: Because this government
 ** INTERNET: jca@thewall.cts.com        |         needs an enema!"
 **           jca@thewall.uucp           |
 ** UUCP    : nosc!jadpc!thewall!jca     |       - joshm@pnet01.cts.com
 */
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Lawmaster Case in Tulsa OK
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:26:20 GMT
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, VA

Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.
Keywords: 


Has anyone heard any more on the BATF's complete trashing of John
Lawmaster's home.

Has the search warrant affidavit been released?
 
Has BATF paid damamges?

Has *naything* constructive been accomplished so far?

Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-P  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
----------------------------------------------------------------
Use your ultimate firepower:  VOTE!
-- 
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-239-8993  or  703-764-0527  To log in for trial and account info.
From: jalden@coos.dartmouth.edu (Joshua M. Alden)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Ann Landers
Summary: April 6 Landers is pro handgun ban.
Date: 7 Apr 92 02:06:09 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH


    Those of you who are good at writing short, significant letters
should check out the April 6 Ann Landers column.  Sample quotation:

    Reader:  Only a total ban on handguns will make this country safe
again.
    Ann:  How right you are, but the National Rifle Association is so
rich and powerful we may never see that day.

    Take a moment to write a short, pertinent reply to only one point in
her column, at most two.  Those are the ones which stand any chance at
all of being printed.

    People who are known for flying off the handle and saying things
which other people tell you are inappropriate (you know who you are),
please don't write.  The potential damage in a column this widely
published is enormous, and it would be a pity to give Ann the
opportunity to represent gun owners with a letter from an arrogant
blowhard when we could be represented more accurately by someone capable
of writing a considered, courteous letter.

-Josh.

--
Josh Alden:  Joshua.Alden@dartmouth.edu
EMT Instructor, DMS Health Education And Rescue Training
Ownership of a weapon is a victimless crime.
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Kill for a penny myth
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:28:52 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr14.164343.13705@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.232909.12087@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>>>
>>>Said person doesn't seem to exist outside Bowman's head.
>>>
>>Have you been asleep, away or something. The guy has written in 
>>owning up. You've lost the plot mate!
>
>No, he didn't own up to "would kill for a penny".  He said that he'd
>defend himself from an attack even if all he had was a penny, which is
>a very different thing indeed.
>
Nope. You still have it wrong.

>Ross doesn't know tenses and Bowman has problems with reading
>comprehension.  I'm sure that's my fault, perhaps because "my" CIA
>overthrew an Oz govt just like it was some third world country and not
>a toady looking for a master.  Oz "virtue" is incapacity.

Are you feeling OK today Andy?????
>
-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: uk09365@nx20.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: right to bear arms
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 01:22:14 GMT
X-Bytes: 

> cl231519@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes
> >A note about the constitution and the right to bear arms:
> >
> >1)it guarantees your right to own a musket.(that's all thefirearms they  
had
> >back then)

They also had rifles, handguns, and multibarreled (ie. multi-shot)  
firearms back then, too.


This sounds like the old logic that allowed wiretaps without a warrant  
because telephones did not exist in 1789.

RIK
[You're wrong and your mother sends you to Louisville.]
From: jreece@sousa.intel.com (John Reece)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: (In)sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:32:11 GMT
Reply-To: jreece@sousa.intel.com
Organization: Intel - Information Technologies

In article <susan.703123520@coombs>, susan@coombs.anu.edu.au 
(Susan McDonald) writes:

> 	Who said I was interested in taking your guns away Roberta?  As far
> as I know I haven't even mentioned my gun control agenda.  Who is now
> stereotyping?  Perhaps you are presuming a lot, aren't you Roberta?

> 	Who said I wanted to "ban guns"?  I didn't, nor ever have.

In <susan.702534881@coombs> (Re: Manhood, talking tough, etc.) you wrote:

	We are all subject to our emotions and unable to think clearly 
	under stress.  Hence guns should be barred from everybody
	in that case.


-- 

John Reece			
Intel spokesman?  Not!
From: meyer@team01.enet.dec.com (M Meyer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Perot for President
Date: 6 Apr 92 13:21:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: DEC


In article <1206@xroads.UUCP>, coffin@xroads.UUCP (Chris Coffin) writes...
>Keith Dow (dow@idtg.UUCP) writes:
>> RKBA
>> 
>> Read the Constitution again.  It doesn't say the right to keep and bear arms.
>> It says the states have the right to a "well regulated militia."  The Supreme
>> Court has ruled that does not mean the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
>Hmmm, let me put my reading glasses on here.
> 
>Admendment II
> 
>" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a
>free state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
>not be infringed."
> 
get the punctuation right... it is *VERY* important!!!!


>The right of the state to a well regulated militia shall not be
>infringed? no, that's not quite right. 
> 
>Oh, here it is: The right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms
>shall not be infringed. Thats what it says.
> 
You too have missed a large part of the issue... the second amendment says
because it is necessary to have a well regulated militia (standing army) to
provide for the security of a free state (the United States of America) 
from agression and military action from where ever it might come to take our
freedom from us, (at the time, having a standing army was worse than having 
small pox),  "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed" this is to protect the people from excesses of the well regulated
militia and those who would control it in the unforseen future.  self
protection seems to be implyed but not directly. it just provides the tools to
do the job as being protected by the amendment.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: Libertarians ARE Liberals (was Re: Perot for President)
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 00:43:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.194502.8728@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, skrone@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (stuart.krone) writes:

|> I hate being called a Liberal. You might want to refer to us
|> as classical liberals but even that has a negative ring.

How about "Jeffersonian Liberal" - I've been calling myself that for some years.

-- 
Kirk Hays - NRA Life.
"You are getting hung up unnecessarily by the use of the words (and
their associated meanings).  What you should be doing is _ignoring_
the actual words...the words themselves are completely unimportant."
--brian@coombs.anu.edu.au
From: ron@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ron Miller)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Watch out for this!
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:06:52 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

To add to Frank Crary's info----

Re: "Militia" definition.

I have found sufficient documentation to completely satisfy myself as the
the meaning of the word "militia" as used in the Second Amendment.

You pro-RKBA'ers may find this useful. Feel free to use it.
The anti-RKBA'ers will find excuses, as usual.

The Federal amendments to the Federal Constitution were born on a pattern
that had been seen in the several colonies. Immediately after the Declaration
of Independence, the 13 colonies set to the business of figuring out how
to govern themselves as states. 8 colonies  created both Constitutions 
and Bills of Rights.  Virginia had set the precedent for elegance and 
completeness fairly early. Other colonies which adopted a BOR emulated
the Virginia model with minor modifications based upon their particular
regional concerns (Baptists vs. Anglicans etc).

James Madison, a Virginian, the man Congress picked to draft the Federal BOR, 
relied heavily upon the Virginia BOR. He had been included in the 
original Virginia committee,  which  drafted the Virginia BOR.

================
Here is the relevent text: (From the Virginia Declaration of Rights;
June 12, 1776)

Article 13: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the 
people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of
a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided,
as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be
under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
=====================

Here is the Federal 2nd Amendment: (December 15, 1791)

Article II: A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of
a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed.
======================

Based on this, it sounds like there is serious grounds for firearms 
training in schools :-)!!!


Ron Miller
(Don't believe things until you've researched them for yourself.)
From: tolman%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Repeal the second amendment
Date: 17 Apr 92 20:04:12 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept


  Find a copy of the constitution, and read the second amendment.  Really,
do it! (Also glance through the rest)  It gives the right to bear arms,
BECAUSE the states were afraid of losing control to the federal government.
Since each state didn't have an army, they wanted individuals to have the
right to bear arms.  However, this notion is antiquated.

  There seems to still be a small reason for the right to bear arms: If our
government grew tyranical and out of control, the citizens should have the
power to throw out leaders and establish new ones.  The only way to accomplish
this would be through armed insurrection.  Is it?  Actually, this power is
already built into our consitution- the people have the power to establish
a new leader at their will.  

  So the constitutional reason for guns doesn't make sense anymore. Is there
any other reason for people to have guns?  Yes- it gives them more freedom.
They can hunt, shoot at cans, etc.  They can protect themselves from other
people with guns.  They have increased freedom.

  However, our society is not a free society. We do not have the right or
privelege to do many things, because many things REDUCE the freedom of others.
Now we have reached a point of debate- what allows the most freedom for all
in the long run?

  This question must be answered by you personally, and can't be answered for
certain by anyone, hence the debate.  However, you should be aware of what
freedom's it gains for all, and what it detracts.

Here is a quick run down of some of them:

Detractions:
------------------------------
People die accidentally.  In these cases, they lose ALL freedom.
People are murdered.  (other weapons will suffice, but require more time/
guts, less people would be murdered without guns) Again, ALL freedoms are 
lost.


Gains:
------------------------------
Hunting, sport shooting.
Self defence.


It seems clear that the gains are less than the detractions.  However, this
is only true if you are willing to sacrifice.  This is up to you.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: Guns and Rape
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: CS&E, Uni of NSW, Australia
	<LAMBERT.92Mar31171444@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<1992Apr2.141956.4140@acsu.buffalo.edu>
	<1992Apr02.155725.19415@convex.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 13:24:00 GMT

>>>>> On Thu, 02 Apr 1992 15:57:25 GMT, Kevin Langston <langston@convex.COM> said:
>     It really doesn't matter whether 0.2% or 20% of the women in a given area
>     carry a .38 caliber protector. What matters is that 50% of the potential
>     rapists/muggers/etc believe that a significant number of their potential
>     victims can immediately fend off their attack, thus forcing them to
>     consider the potential cost of said crime. This is how deterrents work.
>     Notice how this can explain why the Orlando program had a sudden, local
>     effect,

The effect is consistant with the extreme variation in the rate before
the gun-training program -- i.e. the effect was not statistically
significant.

>  why the Oregon CCP liberalization had a similar effect,

Can you provide more details?

>     As so many sociological/psychological/criminological studies have shown,
>     criminals lean towards instant gratification, long term rewards and
>     punishments don't mean as much to them. That's why the instant frustration
>     of facing an armed victim is a very real consideration, even for the more
>     hardened criminals. Because it's a NOW function, and they live in the NOW
>     time frame. 

Which totally undercuts your statement above of how deterrents work.
No rapist in Orlando was frustrated by an armed victim.  Since
criminals "live in the present", they do not consider the "potential
cost of said crime".

I think the reason that the "deterrence theory" seems so plausible, is
that we assume criminals think like ourselves.  If I were a criminal,
I would be deterred by the thought of encountering an armed victim,
but I'm not a criminal, so my though tprocesses do not give much
insight into the way criminals think.  Unfortunately, criminals do not
think of the future, are just the sort of people who will not be
deterred by the potential consequences of their actions.

Tim

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald)
Subject: Re: Manhood, talking tough, posting in t.p.g., life, universe and
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date: 12 Apr 92 23:55:43 GMT

malloy@NPRDC.NAVY.MIL (Sean Malloy) writes:

>In article <susan.702687861@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au writes:
>>	Wanting equality does not mean that we want to become the _same_ as
>>men.  We don't want the male (violent) solution to our problems because all
>>it causes in the long run is just more grief and suffering.  Wymmin seek an
>>alternative _peaceful_ solution.  

>Fine; you can let your 'alternative _peaceful_ solution' be lying down
>and spreading your legs when a rapist isn't willing to listen to you,
>but don't try to force _your_ idea of the _right_ solution on someone
>to whom lying back, gritting their teeth, and accepting it is a
>completely _unacceptable_ solution. Coercing everyone else to follow
>your ideal of 'peaceful solutions' makes you different from men only
>in that you're employing a different _kind_ of violence.

	A rather typical male response IMO.  Have you ever considered that
it might not be possible to reach the point where its no longer necessary
for anybody to have to, "lie back and grit their teeth,"?

	Why should we as wommin have to control the behavior of men who
can't control their dicks?



--
|  *   |We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men, and if we were free... |
|*    *|as under natural conditions, our motherhood would be our glory. That |
|    ' |function gives women such wisdom and power as no male ever can       |
|   *  |possess. - Elizabeth Cady Stantoni___________________________________|
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Date: 7 Apr 92 09:04:54 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <9204062113.AA03617@skinner.nprdc.navy.mil> malloy@NPRDC.NAVY.MIL (Sean Malloy) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.233526.8883@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au writes:
>>Well Henry my old mate, you make a good point. We have fire departments
>>to worry about what ifs. We don't expect each citizen to own a fire truck and
>>firefighting equipment. In much the same way we have police to worry about
>>what ifs on the criminal front.... your analogy does not help your case.
>
>But does your government encourage or discourage each household to buy
>and keep their own fire extinguishers around the house or in their
>car, against the 'what if' of a fire starting that they are able to
>put out by themselves? Are you claiming that the best response to a

Yep, moderately. The govt has better things to do than worry unduly
about it.

>grease fire on your stove is for you to run off and call the fire
>department, then run out of your house and let it burn until the fire
>crew shows up?

No. Why do you postulate such a silly thing. But of course all
things in moderation. No use being a hero and getting burnt. 
Houses can be rebuilt; people cannot.

>
>A house fire is going to burn for a long time; the fire crews show up
>to prevent it from spreading to nearby houses as much as they do to
>put it out. An assault or robbery happens quickly; it's usually over
>by the time the police can arrive. At least in the US, the government
>encourages citizens as a matter of common sense to purchase fire
>extinguishers -- and more is better -- in order to defend themselves
>and their property against fire before the fire department can arrive.
>The same common sense applies to purchasing firearms in order to
>defend yourself and your property against criminals before the police
>can arrive, but the government is apparently scared of what might
>happen if its citizens accepted the responsibility for their own
>protection -- they might decide that they don't need a huge,
>economy-strangling bureaucracy, and put lots of government officials
>out of work.
>
OK. Then how come the police are against private gun ownership
for self-defence. After all firefighters encourage people
to have preventative equipment.

>-- 
>random sig #70:
>Sean Malloy                                  | Life would be much easier if we
>Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | could just look at the source
>San Diego, CA 92152-6800                     | code.
>malloy@nprdc.navy.mil                        | 


-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.