HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: A question on U.S. Constitution
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 17:46:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.004039.23172@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles
Scripter) writes:

   In article <9209021313.AA07734@gandalf.ssw.com>, leone@GANDALF.SSW.COM
   (Bob Leone) writes:

   > Undoubtedly, they meant the common-law interpretation of "due process".
   > I.e:
   >    1) Indictment by a Grand Jury
   >    2) A trial by jury in open court, conducted under the established rules
   >       of common-law
   >    3) If found guilty, the person being sentenced in accordance with the
   >       law he was found guilty of violating.

   Excellent!  This is exactly my claim!  A *LAW* passed by Congress does
   *NOT* constitute "due process", as is required by the 5th Amendment.
   A person may only have his property taken after "due process".

   (remember, the suggestion was for the govt to claim that a *law*
   constitutes "due process", and force firearm owners to give up or
   destroy their weapons by these means).

Unfortunately, this is not the only common law interpretation of due
process.  For example, (citing only recent times), the Supreme Court
recently upheld the confiscation of property upon the vaguest of
probable cause arguments (in the case of a dog reacting to currency
that was then seized as being drug related).  Commitments to mental
institutions, evictions, jeopardy assessments by the IRS, and
condemnation by the county under eminent domain are all examples of
property seizure based upon process that does not include a trial and
a jury verdict.

Now, I agree (and I think the Supreme Court does as well) that the
simple passage of a law does not constitute due process.  A recent
case in North Carolina seems to point toward that fact; and if this
was your only point, I think it is valid.

The only problem is, there are LOTS of ways for the legislature to get
around this if they want to.  An example is a confiscatory tax on
guns.  This might or might not make it past a court challenge.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@fishlab10  (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: JDs (was Re: Clinton in _Rolling Stone_ ...)
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 02:36:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.111551.27671@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:

>
>>There are .22 automatics, yes. Converting a semi to full is not impossible.

There are .22 automatics which were built to be autos.  Converting
semiautos is likely to be more difficult than building one from scratch.

>I have never seen a .22 cal machine pistol or submachine gun, but one netter
>wrote me that Ruger 10-22s .22 LR rifles have been made (or remade?) in
>full auto and can be had in those states like Colorado which allow it.

Unlikely.  I know of one full-auto .22, the American 180.  A .22 LR
with a laser sight, 180 round drum, and was only available to police
agencies, and prisons.  It was reputed to throw 3000 rounds/minute
which means the 180 shot drum will last about 3.6 seconds.  Not
terribly useful...

--
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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak)
Subject: Former Chief Justice Warren Burger
Originator: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:27:17 GMT


fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>>pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:

>>If I were writing the Bill of Rights now, there wouldn't be any such
>>thing as the Second Amendment ... This has been subject to one of the
>>greatest pieces of fraud - I repeat the word fraud - on the American
>>public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.
>>                                 - Former Chief Justice Warren Burger

>I'm afraid I'm not impressed with his reasoning: From all his published
>statements, his logic goes no further than "It only applies to 
>the National Guard and state militias. Guns are bad." (A paraphrase...)
>I haven't heard him produce any evidence or facts to back this up.

>It is also worth noting that Chief Justice Burger is a strong
>supporter of judicial activism and, while on the bench, based his
>opinions on how he thought the Constitution _should_ read, not what
>it actually said.

 In addition, Former Chief Justice Warren Burger also doesn't mind
 owning his own handgun(s), and brandishing them at 1AM when answering
 the door to his home. . . . . .

 I guess his version of handgun control applies only to other peoples
 handguns and not his.

                                Bill Vojak
                                Bill_Vojak@stortek.com
                                NRA, ILA, CFC

------------------------------------------------------------
The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER NOT!)
------------------------------------------------------------
From: dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: A little on self defense...
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:22:10 GMT
Organization: I don't speak for them anyway.

In article <1992Sep14.001351.21247@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>
>>A knife is easier to use defensively, and it's easier also to merely
>>disable the person without putting their life in danger.  It's far more
>
>	There is _no way_ to disable a person with a puncture 
>weapon (knife or gun) w/o putting his or her life in danger.  

There are ways.  They are not easy, risk free, or recommended.
I would not suggest anyone try to disable with knife or gun.

>If the attacker's life is a concern to you, 
>then you have not reached the point when it would be appropriate to use a 
>knife or gun.

As ugly and barbaric as this may sound, it is spot on.

>	BTW, knives incapacitate one way: blood loss, same as a gun.

They can incapacitate by rendering they victim helpless and 
bleeding.  Ever hear of hamstringing?

>This takes several minutes to hours after the stabbing/shooting for
>the attacker to become incapacitated (read: expired), depending on
>the number and severity of the punctures you inflict.  For incapacitation,
>"rapid bleeding" is the name of the game, and knives just don't cut it
>against guns. 

A knife can cause "rapid bleeding".  So rapid, in fact that you 
will die very quickly.  The point is that most do not posess the
skill to inflict such wounds with a knife, much less use the correct
knife.

>Knives are much slower for this than guns, and harder to 
>use effectively, taking speed, strength, and skill, and for this reason, 
>knives have been largely replaced by guns for those interested in self 
>defensive weapons  
>(Notice what is in the holster your local cops carry, is it a knife or
>a gun?).

Very good point.  A gun is a very scary thing.  Were I attacked I
would much rather it be a knife.  I stand a much better chance
if survival.

This is why, though I once shot in the 270-300 range in the military, 
that I do not like firearms.  It's too damn easy to be killed by
your average person.

>>precise, and it's also always ready.  Do I carry a knife?  Yep.  It is
>>MUCH more controllable than a gun, 
>
>	I couldn't disagree more.

And while I disagree on a few of your minor points, you do
state your case well.

>	They are both very similar in another sense, except that knives
>are inferior for most self-defenseive uses.

They are.  But they are also silent, easy concealable, and relitivly
cheap.

>	If someone breaks in and does you harm, there is only him to
>blame.

Well, you are to blame too.  Think about it.




     Donn Pedro ....................................dfpedro@uswnvg.com

		     There are no ordinary moments.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: A question on U.S. Constitution
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 19:36:36 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting
Distribution: na

I read in a book on Constitutional history that President *Jefferson* ordered
ships to be seized if there was even a *possibility* that the ship
might try to violate an embargo that Jefferson had imposed. Makes
civil seizure as we know it look relatively benign.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
RE Drug Warriors who enjoy making a "good" bust: I'm sure the Salem
Witch Hunters enjoyed their law enforcement achievements too.
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: New JPFO Book on Nazi Gun Control Laws
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:36:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.

In article <1992Sep14.174717.18516@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:
>
>Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership is now offering a
>new book entitled:
>
>		"GUN CONTROL" Gateway to Tyranny
>		
>		The Nazi Weapons Law, 18 March 1938
>		
>It is a 136 page book, size 8.5 x 11.
>
>Price $19.95 + $2.95 Shipping
>
>TWO books for $43.85 + $3.95 Shipping

I hope this is a typo.  If two copies are shipped to the same
address separately it costs $45.80, this "deal" would cost $47.80.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: Update: Seattle Gun Buy-Back
Keywords: ugh
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:34:08 GMT

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 precinct
houses?

-- 
Kirk Hays - NRA Life.
Start your day with a little civil disobedience.  Call BATF at 1-800-ATF-GUNS or
1-800-RUN-GUNS, tell them what you think of gun grabbers and government employees
that encourage people to narc on their neighbors.  Good for the soul.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: JDs (was Re: Clinton in _Rolling Stone_ ...)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:13:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.172337.11994@auto-trol.com> stedee@auto-trol.com (Steve Deemer) writes:
>>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>: Every time I post this, someone insists I'm wrong, that it's easy to
>>: convert guns to full-auto, that anyone with a screwdriver or a file
>>: can do it in 10 minutes.  My response each time is the same; put up or
>>: shut up.  I'll pay $3k plus up to $2k expenses to anyone who can
>>: demonstrate such a conversion to me or a surrogate of my choosing.
>>: (The demonstrator must provide evidence showing that the gun converted
>>: started out as a sold-as semi-auto in the US.)  I still have my money.
>
>Well, I could use the money, but actually converting a firearm to full-auto
>is a big time Federal felony, $100,000 and/or 10 years penalty.  Would you
>pay $1000 for blueprints describing how to convert a fifty-year old
>Wards .22 rifle to full-auto?  For this rifle, the conversion involves
>a modification to the sear (which is the little do-dad that grabs the
>firing pin as it resets after a shot).

Of course I'm not willing to accept that.  I've got a collection of
blueprints for methods that don't work.

>In article <1992Sep14.025543.21207@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>>They might be able to, if they can jamb the firing pin forward. However,
>>that gives you an all-or-nothing effect. Once you fire the first round,
>>the only way to stop it is remove the clip.
>
>I don't understand this statement.  A semi-auto firearm is one that
>fires the loaded round, automatically loads a new round, and prepares 
>the action for firing for each trigger pull.  The only functional
>difference between this and full auto operation is that there exists
>some mechanism in a semi-auto to stop the action at the point where
>it's ready to fire the next round.

Wrong.  A closed bolt semi-auto starts by releasing the firing pin,
but both it and a full-auto have to get the firing pin retracted until
the breach is closed and locked again.  A full-auto has to release the
firing pin for subsequent shots WITHOUT any trigger action, but only
after the breech is closed and locked.  It can't leave the firing pin
out there; that results in an explosion.

>Every full-auto firearm
>I'm familiar with has a semi-auto mode, which is a pretty strong 
>suggestion that full- and semi-auto designs are essentially the same
>thing, working in two different modes.

That merely implies that a full-auto is a superset of a semi-auto;
the "extra" is important.

>Plus, a semi-auto can sometimes
>go full-auto by accident, resulting in a runaway gun as described above.

They also blowup.  That's not a successful conversion.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: jon@cyclone.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum)
Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment Myths
Originator: jon@cyclone
Organization: The MITRE Corp. McLean Va.
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 07:35:08 GMT


In article <BuGAxH.Bt0@matilda.vut.edu.au>, db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
> In article <DLB.92Sep10103905@fanny.wash.inmet.com> dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes:
> >
> >In addition, stating that the Second Amendment is vague and ambiguous
> >does not make it so.
> >
> Yes. And stating white is white does not make it so. But neverthless
> it is still white, just as the Second Amendment is vague and ambiguous.

Gee, Dave, or is it Susan?  You two write so much alike....  the 2nd
Amendment to the U.S. consititution seems fairly clear to me.  But then
I was educated in the U.S. school system and have a native's understanding
of American culture.  Perhaps, if you were to broaden your view beyond
that of your current parochial one, you too could understand english.
-- 
<jon@mitre.org>|--------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------| Libertarian Party  
  Andre Marrou    Nancy Lord for  | 1528 Pennsylvania Avenue SE  (202)543-1988
  for President   Vice-President  | Washington, DC 20003         (800)682-1776  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: JDs (was Re: Clinton in _Rolling Stone_ ...)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 05:28:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.025543.21207@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>I seem to recall that 600 rounds/minute was an upper bound for most
>automatic weapons - with the exception of the minigun type.

The German G-11 fires 1200 (1500?) rounds/minute in three-round burts
mode. (If anyone can explain, exactly, it is possible to have a
higher three-round burts rate of fire than full auto, I'd like
to hear the details...)

                                                      Frank Crary
                                                      CU Boulder
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment Myths
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:12:40 GMT

In article <82355@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>Anyway, many, if not most, legal scholars seem to think that both
>the 2nd and the 3rd are anachronisms born out of conditions that responded to
>conditions local to the 18th century.

Most legal scholars haven't bothered to consider the issue seriously, nor
have they read the case law on the Second Amendment (see, for example,
Sanford Levinson's _The_Embarassing_Second_Amendment_ for details on
this.)

As such, I don't think they have much of a basis for an opinion.

>In the modern world, the federal
>government has gained almost total supremacy over the states, and the state
>militias have evolved into the National Guard.  Hence, the interpretation that
>the RKBA is really a "collective" right which the National Guard fulfills.

Based on the incorrect assertion that the National Guard is the militia.
The Supreme Court has recently ruled the reverse: It is part of the
federal army (Perpich v. Department of Defense.)

>FC> It is also worth noting that Chief Justice Burger is a strong
>FC> supporter of judicial activism and, while on the bench, based his
>FC> opinions on how he thought the Constitution _should_ read, not what
>FC> it actually said.

>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.

Discredited amoung whom? Lawyers and politicians, with a vested interest
in mis-reading the Constitution? Possibly. Among the American people,
who still consider it to be "the supreme law of the land"? I don't
think so.

>I again propose the works of the Constitutional scholar Leonard
>Levy for a detailed refutation of "original intent"...

And I suggest the writings of Justice Black, for a detailed defence
of it.

>Or perhaps the "unorganized militia" is not what the framers of the 2nd had in
>mind.

The militia the framers had in mind is, presumably, the one they organized
under the Militia Act of 1792. This provided for a militia almost identicle
to the modern "unorganized militia", except that all male citizens of
militia age were required to own a rifle, musket or two pistols and
to spend a few weekends each year practicing with them.

I think most gun owners spend more time than this at rifle ranges...

                                                  Frank Crary
                                                  CU Boulder
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (ICOM IC-R70)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment Myths
Date: 8 Sep 92 15:06:44 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
Organization: AT&T


In <Bu35ny.5Gt@matilda.vut.edu.au> David Bowmen states:

|In article <1992Sep2.233128.9231@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
|>I'm afraid Andy Freeman and C. D. Tavares have been preaching to
|>the converted (though doing a good job of it): Mr. Wojcike redirected
|>follow-ups to talk.politics.guns only, so the people on talk.politics.misc
|>have been seeing only one side of the discussion.
|>
|There *is* only one side! The right side. The anti RKBA side.

Let's see now, the headline on the USA Today article from May 4, 1992:

		"Survival of the Armed"
		
[In reference to the LA riots.]

Guess that shoots down your "anti RKBA side" being the "right side"
argument, huh?
From: uk09365@nx08.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.bush.alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Welfare - The Truth Finally Revealed! was Re: DATELINE: Bush 
    fucks up!
Date: 15 Sep 92 02:26:55 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

In article <prkbr84@twilight.wpd.sgi.com> coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com  
(Don Coolidge) writes:
> Brian,
> 
> While I agree with some of what you've said, I think you've swallowed a  
bit
> too much Reagan/Bush party line on the subject of welfare. Welfare  
reform would
> be a useful thing, but there just isn't anywhere near the level of abuse  
that
> the rightwingers would have us believe. Last statisitics I read  
indicated that
> something on the order of 65% or 75% of all welfare recipients were on  
the
> dole for less than six months before they were back on their feet again.
> That sounds pretty successful to me. Yes, there are abuses (as in any  
facet
> of life), but they are in the tiny minority.

The real question is how many times these people go on
welfare.  If 75% of the recipients are on it for < 6 months
and they get back on their feet and never need it again
that is different than if they are back on welfare three
months later.

Comments?

Robert K.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jdw@unislc.uucp (James Warren)
Subject: Re: Seattle Buy-Back Update
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:37:15 GMT

From article <82472@bcsaic.boeing.com>, by rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake):
> 
> 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.

It is certainly possible that this program could have saved a child's
life, but it is far more (statastically) possible that one of those guns
could have been used to stop a crime and, very possibly, save one or
more lives.  Is $65,000 enough to spend in order to give criminals a
safer work environment?

> 
> 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.  

When faced with the greater fear of owning a gun, why did they do it?
Are they just thrill seekers looking for the scariest form of life to
live, and if so why did they suddenly change their minds?  

I have no doubt that there are people who would rather not have to have a
gun around to protect themselves, but I expect most of them would rather have
something done about the reason for the need than to have some group
trying to buy the gun that they feel is required to protect themselves.

>            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.

You must get your NRA propaganda from HCI type propaganda.  You might
want to look into what NRA's stand REALLY is.  In general, NRA wants to
keep guns out of the hands of criminals and incompetent persons while
not restricting the use of guns by law-abiding citizens.  Most, if not all, 
anti-gun groups want to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens
while not affecting the criminal.

> 
> -----
> Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.
> 
>     Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment Myths
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:34:23 GMT

In article <BuGAxH.Bt0@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
[snip]

>Yes. And stating white is white does not make it so. But neverthless
>it is still white, just as the Second Amendment is vague and ambiguous.

No, it is not.  
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:20934 rec.martial-arts:12157