HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Re: Freaks And Self-Defense
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:43:33 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

ctdonath@rodan.syr.EDU (Carl T. Donath) writes:
>
>Wasn't there a case recently where some freak started shooting in a 
>restaurant, and someone shot back, preventing another mass execution
>(the type that the media loves)?

Well... maybe.

Think about it: if some lunatic in a restaurant starts shooting, and
an armed citizen stops him/her, how can we know whether there would
have been a "mass execution" or not?  Your question is unanswerable.

If an armed citizen or undercover cop had been in Luby's Cafe at the
time, the killer would have been stopped and the local news media
would have reported a shooting (either a "self-defense shooting", a
"vigilante shooting", or a "murder" depending on the editorial slant
of your local newspapers).  But the story would NOT have been about
the twenty-odd people saved by a local armed hero, because the person's
action would have prevented those deaths.  It would have been just
another ignored defensive shooting report.

But to answer the question you probably meant to ask: cases in which
an armed citizen shoots an armed assailant to prevent lethal assault
on innocent people are not uncommon, and any of them MIGHT have been
a massacre if not dealt with appropriately.

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Brady Bill squashed and other news
Keywords: Brady, Good riddance
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:52:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.221840.22474@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) writes:
>I'm really going to enjoy posting the summary of how the vote went, BY
>PARTY AFFILIATION.  Any Libertarian demagogues out there who want to put
>their money where their mouth is and bet me whether there is a significant
>difference between the two parties on this one?

Have fun.  I'm no demagogue, but the Republicans are as much the enemy as 
the democrats, and from my perspective, there is no practical difference.  
Both want to tax away my income, they just disagree with each other on how 
to spend the booty from the extortion process.  Both parties are willing to 
dis-assemble my civil liberties as protected under the Second Amendment, teh 
democrats, eagerly, the republicans, as a lever to pry away at my OTHER 
civil liberties.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: gag65@cas.org ()
Subject: Libertarian presidential candidate Andre Marrou on Larry King 10/12
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:16:44 GMT

This has already been posted to the alt.politics.libertarian and
alt.politics.marrou groups, but for those interested in hearing the Libertarian
Candidate for president, Andre Marrou, he will be on CNN's Larry King show
tonight (10/12) at 9:00. Eastern.  He will probably be on during the second half
of the show.

Marrou will no doubt be talking about being the only one of the four candidates
on the ballot in all 50 states who was not invited to the debates.  He will also
most likely discuss Libertarian solutions to current problems and the
differences his ideas and those of the other three candidates.

--Gary
~
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing army?
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:15:09 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 71221@hydra.gatech.EDU, gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox) writes:
>In <84952@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:
>
>]erasing lines and redrawing them.  If you believe that your freedom of speech
>]is unregulated, then go shout "Fire!" in a crowded auditorium and explain it
>]to the judge.
>
>*Sigh* Will people never stop bringing up this incredibly stupid example?

*Sigh*  Will people never tire of histrionic responses in these discussions?  ;-) 

>There is no government regulation of such free speech. You can be held liable
>if your actions cause harm to others, but this is totally separate from
>the free speech issue. The accuser must prove you did so with full knowledge
>there was no fire and with malicious intent. Regulating free speech itself
>would come under the heading of prior restraint and is a Bad Thing (tm).

When you pass a law outlawing such behavior it is a kind of prior restraint.
And those who argue that flag burning is not free speech also argue that it
causes emotional harm to people, not to mention a fire hazard.  If you don't
like the "shout" example, there are plenty of others.  You are simply trying
to avoid the point, which is that there is no such thing as an "absolute"
right in our society.  The government can and does regulate speech.  The courts
get to define what counts as "political speech," even though the First does
not use that wording.  It would be quite impossible to use the Constitution if
the courts did not extrapolate meaning in this way.  If we populated the Court
with Bork clones, then burning the flag would most certainly not be protected
under the First.  Packing the Court with anti-abortionists was the Reagan-Bush
strategy for removing a right that women currently possess.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
From: jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Freaks And Self-Defense
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:00:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, Purdue University

From article <1992Oct15.234412.11560@csi.jpl.nasa.gov>, by mwette@csi.jpl.nasa.gov (Matt Wette):
> 
> In article <1992Oct15.164333.13727@microsoft.com>, alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:
> |> ctdonath@rodan.syr.EDU (Carl T. Donath) writes:
> |> >
> |> >Wasn't there a case recently where some freak started shooting in a 
> |> >restaurant, and someone shot back, preventing another mass execution
> |> >(the type that the media loves)?
> |> 
> |> Well... maybe.
> |> 
> |> Think about it: if some lunatic in a restaurant starts shooting, and
> |> an armed citizen stops him/her, how can we know whether there would
> |> have been a "mass execution" or not?  Your question is unanswerable.
> |> 
> |> If an armed citizen or undercover cop had been in Luby's Cafe at the
> |> time, the killer would have been stopped and the local news media
> |> would have reported a shooting (either a "self-defense shooting", a
> |> "vigilante shooting", or a "murder" depending on the editorial slant
> |> of your local newspapers).  But the story would NOT have been about
> |> the twenty-odd people saved by a local armed hero, because the person's
> |> action would have prevented those deaths.  It would have been just
> |> another ignored defensive shooting report.
> 
> There was a case in 1982(?) I believe where three terrorists attacked
> an outdoor cafe in Jerusalem.  The terrorists were armed with machine
> guns and were stopped by armed citizens.  If I remember right, two
> terrorists were killed and the third was captured.  On questioning,
> the terrorist admitted that the group had planned to attack several
> sites.  I think the terrorists killed one person.
>

I remember reading/hearing that the surviving terrorist(s) was
shocked, dismayed and purely pissed to learn that many Israeli
civilians go about armed.  The story may have been apocryphal
though, the terrorists would have to be incredibly ignorant not
to be aware of this. 
-- 
"Land of song, said the warrior bard,           Jim Heath
Though all the world betrays thee.
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard, (The Minstrel Boy)
One faithful harp will praise thee."         (Thomas Moore)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:22068 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6766 talk.bizarre:33972
From: tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:35:02 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Unisys, Applied Technology, Malvern, PA

In article <ATAYLOR.92Oct12165713@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>	This statement is false. "Liberals" generally (but not always)
>	favor such absurdities as the Brady bill; a "rule" which
>	makes no sense and favors only the politically connected
>	and criminals....people who need no favors over Ms. Average
>	who wants to be able to defend herself against attack but
>	often cannot because of "rules" that reserve the right
>	of firearms ownership only to the rich/politically connected.

If the gun grabbers and liberal do-gooders get their way, the only
protection a woman will be allowed to carry is a condom.

-- 
Tom Albrecht
From: mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Candidate ratins on RKBA
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:54:33 GMT
Organization: BNR, Inc. Research Triangle Park, NC


 >Wesley J. Bielinski wrote:
Re: Candidate ratins on RKBA
>Anybody have a list like this for any other states, particularly Illinois?
 Wesley just ask any NRA member the NRA publishes a list for each state 
 inside of their magazine. I only have the one for N.C. Dillon supply will ppay
 $10 of the $25 yearly dues for the first year if you join. Get yourself on 
 Dillons mailing list. They print a free paper called the Blue Press it has
 some good articles along with a lot of adds (hey what do you expect it's free)
  
Myron Petro
  NRA, USPSA 


 ***************************************************************

 The opinions included in this post are my sole responsibility.
 And are protected by the First Ammendment and guarnteed by the 
 Second.   
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Subject: Re: Brady Bill squashed and other news
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Keywords: Brady, Good riddance
Reply-To: kossack@qvi.com
Organization: Draft Dodgers for Clinton and Quayle  
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 04:17:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.192853.29185@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) writes:
- Perhaps you were not a subscriber when I issued my challenge a few weeks
- ago on this subject. I asked for a recorded vote on gun control (not a
- rider on some huge bill) that would reveal the attitudes of the members of

	Nice try, but a vote to violate my civil liberties is still 
   a vote to violate my civil liberties, regardless whether it is a 
   stand-alone bill or a rider on the Federal budget.  


- People have made several irrelevant comments, but they have failed to
- produce an example.
 
	Actually, they have, but stopped after you kept labelling all 
   responses as "irrelevant comments" if they didn't agree with you. 
   If you want examples of Republicans working to violate my right to 
   keep and bear arms, I might mention Bush's semi-auto import ban or 
   Chaffee's (sp) attempt to repeal the Second Amendment or even Bush 
   expressing a willingness to sign the Brady Bill as long as it was 
   part of other anti-BoR legislation.  

	Of course, you're now free to denounce my examples as being 
   the actions of individuals, rather than the party as a whole.  Fine. 
   In that case, trends and tendencies don't matter either, as they're 
   individual actions - to show that there is a difference RKBA-wise 
   between the Elephants and the Donkeys, you must now produce a bill 
   (firearm related) where ALL the Republicans voted one way and ALL 
   of the Democrats voted the other way.  Otherwise, I'll have to pull 
   that little trick of saying that those were INDIVIDUAL actions.  
 

- satisfies my criteria: From the last 20 years, a vote in Congress limited
- to some gun control issue, which shows no significant difference between
- Democrats and Republicans.

	No.  You tell me about a vote on a firearm related issue for 
   which ALL of the Republicans voted one way and ALL of the Democrats 
   voted the other way.  Anything less is "no significant difference."  

 
- >"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
- 
- "Spout the Libertarian party line --- it's easier than thinking."

	Disagree with everyone who replies to your 
	articles -- it's easier than thinking.  


-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  "From each according to his naivete, 
  kossack@qvi.com  |   to each according to his greed"  
  +1 713 240 2073  |                         -- Jeff Orrok   
  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: clc5q@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman)
Subject: NRA Evaluation of Bush and Clinton
Originator: clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:06:30 GMT


A recent article in a Richmond, VA, newspaper said that the NRA was holding out
on endorsing Bush because of his past sins, and because they hope to make him
work a little bit for an endorsement (i.e. make some new public commitments
regarding gun control.)  As a result, they are working primarily on creating
a Congress that can resist gun control efforts by Bill Clinton while pushing
Bush to do something to get an endorsement.

The latest NRA-PVF (Political Victory Fund) letter has a comparison of where
Bush and Clinton stand in regards to the NRA and its concerns. Here it is:


			Clinton		Bush		NRA
			-------		----		---

Supports giving the
Treasury Secretary
authority to ban up
to 30 million semi-autos   YES		NO		NO

Has actively worked
to help raise money
for HCI-supported
groups			   YES		NO		NO

Supports ban on
importation of semi-auto
firearms		   YES		YES		NO

Opposes sportsmen's
legislation aimed at
preventing local gun
bans			   YES		NO		NO

Has worked against NRA
by helping NRA-targeted
candidates		   YES		NO		N/A

Supports giving Washington,
D.C. --- the nation's gun
ban and homicide capital ---
2 anti-gun U.S. Senators   YES		NO		NO

Has stood with NRA in
opposing semi-auto ban on
domestic manufacturers	   NO		YES		N/A

Supports federal hunter
protection legislation
and preservation of public
lands for hunting	   ?		YES		YES

Member of NRA		   NO		YES		N/A

Total support of the Brady
Bill delaying your Consti-
tutional right to purchase
a handgun		   YES		NO		NO

1992 Presidential platform
contains pro-Second
Amendment plank		   NO		YES		N/A


So, the two candidates are equally out of line with the NRA on the third item,
but there is not much contest otherwise.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is seldom that any liberty is lost all at once." David Hume
|||  clc5q@virginia.edu (Clark L. Coleman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Subject: Re: No Difference Between the Parties, Part 3
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:31:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.194503.29415@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) writes:
- Democrats seem to think that a voucher system for education funding is
- a violation of the 1st Amendment's prohibition of an establishment of
- religion, common sense and Supreme Court rulings to the contrary being
- ignored, of course. DO you think the Framers would agree with them, or
- with the Republicans?

	Well, based on (gasp!) the Constitution, the Federal Government  
   has no business (i.e. no legal power regarding) funding education.  
   The First Amendment has nothing to do with it.  Since funding (and 
   regulating) education (public or private) is a power "not delegated 
   to the United States by the Constitution" I would hazard a guess 
   that the Framers would consider a voucher system for public education 
   to be a power "reserved to the States ... or to the people."  

- 
- Do we have evidence of the Framers fighting anti-pornography laws?

	They wrote the Tenth Amendment.  (Oh, and the First Amendment too :-)  


- These are 3 examples out of hundreds that I could give in which the
- Democrats are out of touch with the Constitution, and the Republicans
- are not, on the very subjects you chose.  Care to substantiate any
- counter-examples?

	RICO / War on Drugs   vs.   The Fourth Amendment  


- As you are willing to argue original intent or original understanding on
- this newsgroup with respect to the 2nd Amendment, I assume you have enough
- integrity and consistency to apply the same approach to issues such as
- pornography.

	Sure.  The Tenth Amendment, in conjunction with the rest    
   of the Constitution, makes it clear that the Federales have no 
   legal power to legislate one way or the other regarding porn.  
   Nor drug use, nor drinking age, nor speed limit on state roads, 
   nor abortion, nor ... to get back to the topic concerning this 
   nesgroup ... to legislate wrt firearm ownership/carry.   


-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  "From each according to his naivete, 
  kossack@qvi.com  |   to each according to his greed"  
  +1 713 240 2073  |                         -- Jeff Orrok   
  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Article in NRA magazine
Date: 07 Oct 92 17:11:14 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

Congratulations are due to our very own CLAYTON CRAMER, who has
written an excellent article in this month's _American Rifleman_.

The article is entitled "Is This 'Crime' Worth the Time?" (p 31-32,
October issue) and compares the criminal penalties for various
crimes.  He finds that the the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons
Control Act applies penalties which are entirely out of proportion
to the offense.

The sale of an assault weapon in California carries a minimum
sentence of four years.  Many crimes of violence, however, carry
far shorter penalties: such acts as rape, manslaughter, assault
with a deadly weapon, assault of a peace officer, robbery, and
kidnapping all carry LESSER MINIMUM SENTENCES than merely SELLING
an assault weapon.

Nicely done, Clayton!

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing army?
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:20:54 GMT

>The 1st amendment never gets as specific, especially WRT shouting "Fire".
>I think a more accurate analogy might be that shouting "Fire" in a crowded
>theatre is similar to not being allowed to carry a firearm in a Federal building.

Not quite. The "Fire" situation would be analogous to not being allowed
to shoot innocent people in a federal building (or anywhere else). I
have no problem with this kind of gun control.

If speech control were handled in the way that gun control is currently
handled you would be required to leave your vocal cords in your home
because you might go into a public place and might shout fire when there
was no fire. Yes the "Fire" argument is stupid but it has been effective.

				mike
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Subject: Re: Carry around the country (new)
Reply-To: kossack@qvi.com
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 04:10:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.181831.1510@mcs.anl.gov> shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
- >What do have to do to get some protection around this country!? 
-         ^ you?
- 
- Short answer: Break the law
- Long answer:  Usually break the law.

	Well, you could get elected to public office and receive 
   round-the-clock police protection.  If that's not enough, just  
   get elected President and you'll be protected by the Secret 
   Service.  On the other hand, considering the behavior of some 
   of our elected officials, maybe Mr. Shaffer's comments cover 
   this option as well.  :-(      


-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  kossack@qvi.com  | +1 713 240 2073  |  I am the TSRA  
  
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:22262 sci.med:19319
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,sci.med
Subject: Re: Violence Epidemiologists vs the Gun Lobby
Date: 16 Oct 92 23:20:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: athena.1992Oct16.232012.10070
Followup-To: sci.med
Distribution: na
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens

Another thing about epidemiology is that although it can probe the _actual_
world in a very detailed manner, it can't probe other possible worlds.
This limits its usefulness for dealing with misfortunes whose mechanism
of causation isn't clearly known.

-- 
:- Michael A. Covington     internet mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu 
:- Artificial Intelligence Programs       phone 706 542-0359
:- The University of Georgia                fax 706 542-0349
:- Athens, Georgia 30602 U.S.A.          amateur radio N4TMI
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rboudrea@MtHolyoke.edu (Russ Boudreau)
Subject: Re: Dangerous legal precedent in Ma.
Organization: Mount Holyoke College
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:44:27 GMT

The state of Mass. never ceases to amaze.   Those of us in western Ma.
support your efforts, and I will sharing the fund address with fellow
shooters.