HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: uk09365@nx21.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:38:36 GMT

In article <archer.165@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)  
writes:
> Look again.  In Hinkley's case, he owned the gun that he used for  
several 
> weeks.  HE is the one who claims that the Brady Bill would have stopped 
> him.  He did it in an effort to gain leniency.  Chapman bought the gun  
HE 
> used illegally, and would NOT have been stopped by ANY law.

	Actually, Hinckley bought the gun he used almost SIX months
before (in October, 1980) and would have likely passed any
feasible background check anyway.  Chapman did pass a check in
Hawaii.

	It amazes me that anyone could give credence to
Hinckley's views on gun control and still keep a straight face.
I suppose the next step is to declare Hinckley the official
biographer of Jodie Foster.

Robert K.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: Kevin Langston <langston@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Clinton Shows His True Colors
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Originator: langston@eugene.convex.com
Reply-To: langston@convex.COM (Kevin Langston)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Technical Operations
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 12:59:05 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

tighe@convex.com writes:
>Bill Clinton made his stand on Gun Control pretty clear last week in a
>visit to Houston, Texas. And he provided yet another reason why you should
>not vote for him, regardless of where you stand on the issue, and why he
>has been nicknamed "Slick Willie".
[snip]
>One final note. His [intentional?] ignorance about the Brady Bill not
>requiring background checks just proves that the BIG LIE techniques of
>Sarah and HCI, really do fool the masses.

    After this event, the nightly news showed a 12 year old boy asking
    the Slick One how the Brady Bill would keep criminals from getting
    guns. Of course he couldn't answer, he did mumble something about 
    knowing three people in Arkansas who'd be alive if they'd had it
    there, or some other mush. Then he apparently realized he had more 
    important places to be, and beat a hasty retreat.

    Even a 12 year old can stump this chump.

-- 
----      Kevin Langston               Convex Computer Corporation
------    WORK: langston@convex.com    Technical Operations
"Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous, you get knocked down
 by the traffic from both sides." - Margaret Thatcher
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Background Checks on Mental Illness
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:36:17 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <viking.711858657@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu
(Dan Sorenson) writes:
>	I like the latter idea of the insanity plea -- if you went insane
>enough to do the crime once, there is little reason to believe it won't
>happen again, and thus gun ownership (operation without supervision?)
>might be warranted.  "Making a serious threat in conversation" I have
>a problem with.  Casual conversations (read: male-bonding macho-bullshit
>with abusive-language) often has threats in it.  "Make a pun like that again
>and I shall be forced to kill you, cremate the body, and spread your
>ashes on my carpet while watching a Three Stooges video as penance."

Great...no RKBA for alt.peeves posters... ;v)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: BIG GUNS AND LITTLE REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS...
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:49:18 GMT

Some cowardly little person obsessed with the size of gun-owner's
sexual organs, hiding away in the anonymous electronic safety of 
the net (blosser_cy@lrc.edu) whines from the shadows:

(Much useless, tired, inflammatory rhetoric shit-canned forever...)

>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.

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


Ah, yes, I've heard this before.  You left a few things out, though.
"Love, love, love" - Rock and roll will save the world - Don't trust
anybody over 30 - Paul is dead/Paul is the walrus/all we are saying
is give peace a chance/Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh, the NLF is gonna win/off the pigs/
FLOWER POWER!  

Let me guess... you got into a trunk in your parents' attic and you've
been reading a bunch of stuff about the '60's, right?  Well, most of
us who lived through the '60's at one time carried around the same kind
of attitudes that you have today, except we don't like to admit it,
since we realize how stupid they sound when you're not on drugs.

But hey, you're a college boy, right?  (I presume you're male;  most
women don't talk like that, unless they're nasty-mouthed sluts.)   And 
I guess it's pretty hip to be so "retro", so enjoy yourself.  This is 
the time in your life when everybody forgives you for acting stupid, so 
take advantage of it.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:18351 rec.guns:11080
From: les@ulysses.att.com (Leslie Johnson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,rec.guns
Subject: New Jersey "assault firearms" repeal update
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:55:07 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns

[MODERATOR:  A nice summary of the situation, Leslie, thanks -- as
usual, followup and discussion to t.p.g....]

The repeal of the New Jersey "assault firearms" ban is moving through
the state legislature, with modifications.  The state senate passed
amendments to A7 on July 23, and both houses will vote on it again on
August 3.  I called the governor's office, and was told that Florio
hasn't issued any statement on this bill yet.  I guess we have to wait
until after the 3rd to see what he's going to do with it.

To quote the synopsis, the bill "Requires mandatory prison term for
certain crimes committed with firearms or for possessing firearms in
or near schools; revises definition of machine gun and assault
firearm; eliminates ban on certain magazines; prohibits possession of
certain semi-automatic firearms."

Basically, it redefines an "assault firearm" as a weapon with full-auto
capability and a selector switch, and eliminates the previous long
list of prohibited firearms.  Gone is the prohibition against "large
capacity" magazines (over 15 rounds) and the ban on folding stocks and
pistol grips on shotguns.

Added is a specific ban on any "Avtomat Kalashnikov semi-automatic
firearm or an Uzi semi-automatic firearm" except as grandfathered by
previous ownership.  I don't know what happens for people who had
turned their's in as required by the original ban.  Rewards only those
who had ignored the law?  This was presumably added due to repeated
questions by reporters like "Does this mean Uzis and AK-47s will be
legal?"

Also added is a mandatory penalty (3-5 years in prison - same as for
any other crime with a firearm, though it's never enforced) for
possession of any firearm without a carry permit or valid firearms
purchaser ID card on or within 1000 feet of school property while the
buildings or grounds are being used for school purposes, or on a
school bus, except with written authorization.  (The senate version
removed a previous assembly clause including a boundary of 1000 ft
from a school bus.)  There is also some confusing language saying that
it's still illegal if you do have and FID card, but no mandatory
penalty (if I'm reading this right.)  Exemptions are made for
homeowners and businesses, hunters, transportation of firearms to and
from target ranges, police, military, etc.  Basically any
circumstances that had been considered legal previously in NJ are
exempted from this provision.

--
  - Leslie Johnson  (les@ulysses.att.com) 1+908-582-5493
       "One Bell System - It Works"

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for guns and domestic violence
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:06:22 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.131809.11056@brtph560.bnr.ca> mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030) writes:
> Jonathon king wrote:	
>>I mentioned shotguns precisely because they have never been proposed	
>>for gun registration 
> WRONG!! check California 								
>  1. all firearms require a 15 day waiting period and backround
>     check. (including single shot shotguns)	 

Antique weapons are exempt.  Apparently, you can't commit a crime if
your shotgun is more than fifty years old!  Amazing what one can do
with a little legislation.

>  2. the original assult rifle ban in PRofCa covered all semi-auto 	
>     and pump shotguns which had "could have" a capacity over 5 shells 
>     (I'm not sure what ended up on the final bill could someone in
>      Ca. and NJ give us the list)

CA ended up making a list, too.  They couldn't come up with a good
definition of "assault weapon" (surprise), so they made up a list of
makes and models.  The ONLY thing they all have in common is that they
LOOK scary.  There are at least two shotguns on the list, apparently
because they had drum magazines (and therefore looked like GANGSTER
WEAPONS).  The Winchester Defender shotgun has a 7-shot magazine, plus
one in the chamber, and it's legal (tube magazine, so it looks normal).
The Colt AR-15 rifle is banned; the Colt Sporter, which fires the same
ammo, uses the same semi-auto action, and has the same magazine capacity,
is legal.  The only functional difference I'm aware of is that the AR-15
has a bayonet lug on the end (as do many LEGAL weapons).  The main
visible difference is that the legal Sporter has a pretty, wooden
stock, so it must be a Legitimate Sporting Gun (tm).

A much better name for this particular piece of legislative art would
have been "The TV and Movie Bad-Guy Weapon Ban".  Even the arch-liberal
LA Times admitted that this was a stupid law.  This is what happens
when people who know nothing about a subject try to make rules about it
(this should sound familiar to anyone who's been in computing for a
while).

>  If you want to know how much fear a woman can have when stalked by
> an abusive ex. you should check if someone taped the July 24 America's
> most wanted. It dealt with stalkers and interviewed at least one woman
> that was alive because she did have a gun.

Heavens, good news about guns on a popular network TV show??  Maybe
there's hope.

=====================================================================
Reid Kneeland
reid@ttidca.tti.com  (that's MISTER reid@ttidca.tti.com to you!)
{philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,rdlvax,retix,rutgers}!ttidca!reid
Transaction Technology Inc., Santa Monica, CA, USA (310) 450-9111 x2499
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily etc etc...

Never trust a man who can count to 1,023 on his fingers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: uk09365@nx06.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: Attorney General Barr Announces Violent Crime Report
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 18:33:04 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <1992Jul30.171512.5707@SSD.intel.com> hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk  
Hays) writes:
>    WASHINGTON, July 28 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Attorney General William P. 
> Barr today released a blueprint for fighting violent crime at the 
> state and local level in a report titled "Combating Violent Crime: 
> 24 Recommendations to Strengthen Criminal Justice." 
>    The report highlights the success of tough law enforcement and the 
> need for continued legal reform. 
>    In announcing the report, the attorney general was joined by John 
> Walsh, host of "America's Most Wanted"
	
	Rejected validity and morality of all self-defense in
        an America's Most Wanted episode a few months ago.  
	Said, "there is NEVER (emph. mine) a justification
	for shooting another person."  HOWEVER, he has listened
	with apparent sympathy to women describing how they
	saved their lives by shooting an assailant.

; Robert J. Del Tufo, attorney 
> general of New Jersey;

	Anti-gun (see above)

 Robert Macy, president, National District 
> Attorneys Association;

	????

 Frank Policaro, president, National Sheriffs 
> Association;

	Anti-gun, albeit jumped on the bandwagon late.

 Roland Vaughn, president, International Association of 
> Chiefs of Police;

	First major police organization (I think) to 
	adopt anti-gun position.

 John Gillis, chairman of the California Board of 
> Prison Terms; and Collene Thompson Campbell, president, M.O.V.E. (In 
> Memory of Victims Everywhere).

	????  I don't know; but I would assume the last (at least)
	represents an anti-gun group.

Robert K.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: ^42 The Car-Gun Analogy
From: kreed@telesys.tnet.com (Kevin W. Reed)
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:31:12 GMT
 <1992Jul29.034729.5729@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> <1992Jul29.135830.3708@convex.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: TeleSys Development Systems, Mesa AZ

langston@convex.COM (Kevin Langston) writes:

>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>>If one is willing to live with having to get
>>>a driver's license in order to drive a car, then I don't see why we
>>>can't have some system of gun permits. 
>[snip]
>>A purist would also point out that permits are for competency
>>problems, not intentional misuse problems.

Missed the original post....

There is a big difference between a "Privilege" to drive a car, and
the Constitutional Right as described in the Bill of Rights to own
a gun.

To drive a car in a State, you obtain permission to that privilege by
taking a driving test (and/or exam).  The right to drive is a 
privilege that the State allows you to have provided you abide by it's
laws.  It is not guaranteed by the Constitution.

The right to own and bear arms is.

The drivers license vs gun registration, is not a good analogy.

-- 
+-------------+
|   TeleSys   | Kevin W. Reed  ------  Public *NIX Site and Newsfeed Source
| Development | kreed@tnet.com   UUCP: ...!ncar!asuvax!enuucp!telesys!kreed
|   Systems   | SCO Xenix/Unix Support       Data/UUCP/BBS: +1 602 649 9099
+-------------+
From: condict@kleber.gr.osf.org (Michael Condict)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Ban the Killer of 300,000
Date: 21 Jul 92 13:59:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: osf.1992Jul21.135921.653
Organization: Open Software Foundation

In <1992Jul20.220628.5753@cbfsb.cb.att.com>,
osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) writes:

	Have you seen how EXPENSIVE busses and cabs and trains  
are??!?
	From my home to NYC (about 1 hour) is about $9.00 each way!!   
I could
	drive round trip for about $6.00 including tolls.

This seems unlikely, given an average cost of operating an automobile  
that
must be over $.30/mile by now.  If you are 1 hour from New York, you  
are
probably at least 25 miles out.  Your automobile costs for a round  
trip
would then be $15.00 for the round trip.  Add the $3 toll at the  
tunnel or
bridge and you are up to $18.00, the same as round trip bus fare.

Maybe you were ignoring the depreciation cost of your car, or the  
insurance,
tires, regular maintainence, unexpected repairs, etc.?

It is true that two or more people sharing a car can travel less  
expensively
than a bus or train, but how many cars do you see with two or more  
people
in them, these days?

Michael Condict
OSF Research Inst.
Grenoble


-- NewsGrazer, a NeXTstep(tm) news reader, posting --
M>UQR=&8P7&%N<VE[7&9O;G1T8FQ<9C!<9FUO9&5R;B!#;W5R:65R.WT*7&UA
M<F=L,3(P"EQM87)G<C$R,`I<<&%R9%QT>#!<='@Q-#0P7'1X,C@X,%QT>#0S
M,C!<='@U-S8P7'1X-S(P,%QT>#@V-#!<='@Q,#`X,%QT>#$Q-3(P7'1X,3(Y
M-C!<='@Q-#0P,%QT>#$U.#0P7'1X,3<R.#!<='@Q.#<R,%QT>#(P,38P7'1X
M,C$V,#!<='@R,S`T,%QT>#(T-#@P7'1X,C4Y,C!<='@R-S,V,%QF,%QB,%QI
M,%QU;#!<9G,R."!);B`\,3DY,DIU;#(P+C(R,#8R."XU-S4S0&-B9G-B+F-B
M+F%T="YC;VT^+%P*;W-A;D!C8FYE=W-B+F-B+F%T="YC;VT@*$UR+B!8*2!W
M<FET97,Z7`I<"@E(879E('EO=2!S965N(&AO=R!%6%!%3E-)5D4@8G5S<V5S
M(&%N9"!C86)S(&%N9"!T<F%I;G,@87)E/S\A/UP*"49R;VT@;7D@:&]M92!T
M;R!.64,@*&%B;W5T(#$@:&]U<BD@:7,@86)O=70@)#DN,#`@96%C:"!W87DA
M(2`@22!C;W5L9%P*"61R:79E(')O=6YD('1R:7`@9F]R(&%B;W5T("0V+C`P
M(&EN8VQU9&EN9R!T;VQL<RY<"@I<<&%R9%QT>#DV,%QT>#$Y,C!<='@R.#@P
M7'1X,S@T,%QT>#0X,#!<='@U-S8P7'1X-C<R,%QT>#<V.#!<='@X-C0P7'1X
M.38P,"!<"E1H:7,@<V5E;7,@=6YL:6ME;'DL(&=I=F5N(&%N(&%V97)A9V4@
M8V]S="!O9B!O<&5R871I;F<@86X@875T;VUO8FEL92!T:&%T7`IM=7-T(&)E
M(&]V97(@)"XS,"]M:6QE(&)Y(&YO=RX@($EF('EO=2!A<F4@,2!H;W5R(&9R
M;VT@3F5W(%EO<FLL('EO=2!A<F5<"G!R;V)A8FQY(&%T(&QE87-T(#(U(&UI
M;&5S(&]U="X@(%EO=7(@875T;VUO8FEL92!C;W-T<R!F;W(@82!R;W5N9"!T
M<FEP7`IW;W5L9"!T:&5N(&)E("0Q-2XP,"!F;W(@=&AE(')O=6YD('1R:7`N
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M<&%I<G,L(&5T8RX_7`I<"DET(&ES('1R=64@=&AA="!T=V\@;W(@;6]R92!P
M96]P;&4@<VAA<FEN9R!A(&-A<B!C86X@=')A=F5L(&QE<W,@97AP96YS:79E
M;'E<"G1H86X@82!B=7,@;W(@=')A:6XL(&)U="!H;W<@;6%N>2!C87)S(&1O
M('EO=2!S964@=VET:"!T=V\@;W(@;6]R92!P96]P;&5<"FEN('1H96TL('1H
M97-E(&1A>7,_7`I<"DUI8VAA96P@0V]N9&EC=%P*3U-&(%)E<V5A<F-H($EN
2<W0N7`I'<F5N;V)L95P*"GT*
`
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:18178 soc.women:14221
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.women
Subject: The AvtoMat Kalishnakov Model Number 47
Date: 28 Jul 92 21:13:33 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education

In article <1992Jul28.121332.57554@cc.usu.edu> slzm9@cc.usu.edu writes:

>   The NRA seeks to keep the AK-47 assault rifle legal to the public.
>That is enough for me to know they are misguided. 

1) The Avtomat Kalishnakov 47 is not "legal to the public."  The Kalishnakov 
is a Class-III fully automatic assault weapon and has not been legal to sell 
to private citizens in the United States since 1986, when Ronald Reagan 
signed the so-call "Sportsmans Protection Act."  You have been lied to by 
Sarah Brady, HCI, and their syncophant's on the Hill.  


>Noone needs an
>automatic weapon with that kind of firepower for self defense. 

Perhaps.  Self defense is not the issue here.  The firearm you are concerned 
about, is a semi-automatic rifle with a military appearance. It fires a 7.62 
mm round, one per trigger pull.  This firearm has NO functional difference 
from the average big game rifle.  With one exception:  the AK fires a 
smaller, less lethal round.  A ban of this firearm would accomplish nothing.

Gang
>members however find it an excellent weapon for turf wars.

You are incorrect here.  The choice of weapon for gang warfare is the 
handgun.

-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: H.R. 2922
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:03:02 GMT

<In article <1992Jul25.223403.27105@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbvox1.att.com (Lawrence V Cipriani) writes:

<   My copy of H.R. 2922 finally arrived.  This bill would impose a tax
<   of $0.75 per pound on primary lead, and $0.37 per pound on secondary
<   lead.  The tax would be imposed for 10 years.  The money collected
<   would go into a "trust fund" to pay for removal of lead based paint
<   from assorted public places, inspections of said places, etc.

<   The tax on 1000 rounds of 200 grain bullets would be nearly $21.50
<   for primary lead and nearly $10.75 on secondary lead.  Stock up now.

<   The bill was introduced by Cardin, and has 43 cosponsers.  I don't
<   recognize a lot of the names but the ones I do recognize are liberals.
 
	Just a thought; in addition to the usual folks, we should
	be posting this in gun shops. I know a lot of shotgun 
	shooters who are pretty apathetic about politics....but
	most all of them reload.

	Man, if THIS doesn't get them going, I don't know what will.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton,soc.women
From: trytten@ahmeek.cps.msu.edu (Deborah Trytten)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for guns and domestic violence
Organization: Michigan State University, CPS Department
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 13:41:26 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.050335.6275@adobe.com>, pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
|> The Presbyterians think it is morally wrong for a victim to take
|> an attacker's life under ANY circumstances.

You might want to check your sources a bit more carefully.  My
parents are Presbyterians, and the church they attend believes no such
thing. 

Deb
trytten@cps.msu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Virginia Firearms Investigative Unit
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:48:15 GMT

In article <5089@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

>In article <archer.131@utkux1.utk.edu>, archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>> In article <5054@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>> 
>> >But now people admit that the existing law is either not being enforced 
>> >or is unenforceable.  If the latter, then maybe another law IS the answer.
>> 
>> That doesn't follow.  If one law doesn't work or is not enforced, why would 
>> another one be any different?

>If the existing law is unenforceable, it's still possible that a different
>law based on a different criterion and with much the same result might be
>enforceable.  Certainly enough "bad laws" have been replaced with better 
>laws for practical or constitutional reasons.  The alternative is to argue
>that no law is enforceable.

This is only valid when the new law IS based on different criterion, and is 
not just the same song, second verse.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for guns and domestic violence
Date: 28 Jul 92 20:57:10 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona

In article <1992Jul28.131809.11056@brtph560.bnr.ca> mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030) writes:
>  If you want to know how much fear a woman can have when stalked by
> an abusive ex. you should check if someone taped the July 24 America's
> most wanted. It dealt with stalkers and interviewed at least one woman
> that was alive because she did have a gun.

And what about the several dozen annually who die because
their restraining-ordered husbands have guns?  Recently
it's become a participation sport; there've been three
cases of mass murders/hostage takings over this particular
issue in Phoenix since last year.

Guns don't kill people, restraining orders murder-suicide people.

>  It was a very good show.

Not.

				--Blair
				  "Showing my .45cal bias."
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Tuesday, 21 Jul 1992 13:14:39 MST
From: <ICDLJ@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: militia
Distribution: usa
 <1992Jul17.150752.15128@convex.com> <1992Jul17.160118.26665@linus.mitre.org>
 <1992Jul18.214125.1009@convex.com>


 Perhaps the "point" being made is that citizens keeping and bearing militia
 arms are necessary for a free state, or; when citizens no longer keep and
 bear militia arms, they should not expect to be free, and are subject to ...
 ...etc., and these citizens should look to the infringer of these rights as
 the one separating them from their freedoms.