HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: A thought on the comming gun bans
Keywords: To purchase, or not to purchase....
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 03:28:09 GMT

In article <urbin.84.721407063@interlan.interlan.com> urbin@interlan.interlan.com (Mark Urbin) writes:
>   Where the people in New York City compensated for the legally registered 
>rifles that were declared illegal and then collected by the Police?

Did anyone sue the city over this? (I suspect the Supreme Court would
insist on compensation, but that doesn't mean the local governments
will automatically and uniformly act within the Constitution.)

                                         Frank Crary
                                         CU Boulder
From: miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: You can't fast forward through the next four years
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:17:45 GMT
Organization: University of Kentucky, USA. -5 GMT

I believe the NRA Bush letters were only sent to states where the Bush
Clinton race was considered close. ?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: RISKS DIGEST 13.89
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 92 19:45:39 GMT
Organization: N/I

Have you ever wondered why the Kalifornia firearms-purchase background
check (which my 76-year-old mother had to go through) takes 14 days
instead of 14 seconds?  Here's a tidbit from comp.risks -- maybe they
have to work you in between the Kops checking out their babysitters,
boyfriends, and favorite Hollywood personalities ...

In article <CMM.0.90.1.720736111.risks@chiron.csl.sri.com> risks@csl.sri.com writes:
>RISKS-LIST: RISKS-FORUM Digest  Monday 2 November 1992  Volume 13 : Issue 89
[ ... ]
>Date: Mon, 2 Nov 92 12:14:35 EST
>From: bergman@panix.com (Mark Bergman)
>Subject: Police and Computers 
>
>Police Officials Cited for Searching Private Computer Records
>
>	LOS ANGELES (AP, 30 Oct 1992) -- More than 45 police officials have
>been cited since 1989 for using department computers to check the backgrounds
>of baby sitters, house sitters and others for personal reasons, records show.
>"It's a very serious problem," Police Commissioner Ann Reiss Lane said.  The
>citations came to light after a civilian Police Commission investigator was
>suspended 10 days for using department computers without permission to get
>confidential data on white supremacist Tom Metzger and actor Arnold
>Schwarzenegger.
>	The union representing Robert Bauman appealed the suspension and
>submitted records showing that more than 45 department employees had been
>disciplined in the last three years for illegal computer use.  Most received
>suspensions of two or three days or verbal reprimands.  As an example, Lane
>said Thursday, an officer might use the computer to check the background of an
>individual about to marry one of the officer's relatives.
>	Bauman's 10-day suspension without pay was upheld last week by the
>Civil Service Commission.  Bauman, a 23-year civilian employee, said he already
>has served the suspension and was back at work.  Bauman, a permit processor,
>routinely uses police computers to check the criminal records, police files,
>and tax records of people applying for police permits for massage parlors, gun
>stores and pawn shops.  He said he gathered information on Metzger because he
>is a part-time historian who does research on right- and left-wing political
>groups.  Bauman said he tapped into Schwarzenegger's files because a co-worker
>was curious about the actor.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Everybody got their Vaseline?
Organization: Twilight Zone
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:15:43 GMT

Well, Billy won the election.  I bet Vaseline stock has gone through the
roof.  I got mine, and I'm greased up an' ready...  YAHOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

	-It'sHopeless

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula)
Subject: Re: Damage Assessment after Comrade Clinton's victory?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 12:47:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.163339.12629@guinness.idbsu.edu> betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz) writes:
>does neal knox have a damage assessment out yet?  things appear to
>be pretty bleak on the national scene:   [much deleted for brevity]

All in all, my impression is that things are pretty bleak on the national scene.
The only bright spot I've heard so far is that the Dems didn't manage to
get a filibuster proof majority. The Senate filibuster has played an important 
role in preventing anti-RKBA attrocities, so I take this as a good
thing (but maybe not good enough :(  ). I think I heard the Reps picked
up 8 House seats and (I think) lost only one in the Senate (I could be 
wrong about the Senate).

-- 
==========================================================================
              Disclaimer: These are my views, not the U's

        "If it's in the paper it must be true!" --- D. Doright
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: After the election....
Date: 6 Nov 1992 11:45:02 -0600
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com
Keywords: disgusted Clinton NRA

In article <73908@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt6190a@prism.gatech.EDU (Stephen Burr) writes:
>The day after Clinton was elected to the White House, I sent in my
>application to the NRA.

I am glad you did but next time how about doing something BEFORE
the election.

-- 
-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: I want my Coke
Date: 12 Nov 1992 10:18:34 -0600
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com

In article <1992Nov12.103042.3224@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>Here in the "backward" South we use Voteomatics. The tallies are by
>machine. You punch it, the machine counts it. I happen to know that
>Kentucky uses voting machines. What states still use paper ballots
>that have to be counted by hand?

I've voted on paper ballots in Illinois and in Texas.  In Illinois
you punched holes in the paper to indicate your vote.  I think these
could easily be counted by a machine.  In fact I think it would be
very difficult to count them by hand since the holes were quite
small.  In Texas you fill in the circle with a #2 pencil.  I would
think these are also counted by a machine.

-- 
-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
From: k@hprnd.rose.hp.com (Steve Kao)
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 00:05:56 GMT
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Organization: HP Roseville Networks Division
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

Piet van Oostrum asks:
> But how many times, say in the last 200 years, have guns be used against
> government oppression in the USA, compared to being used to shoot innocent
> people?
> Maybe in the Civil War by the Southerns? But then they did not succeed.

Well, after the Civil War, the KKK went around lynching blacks except
for those blacks who used guns to defend themselves.  In the 1890's and
early 1900's, Italians and Jews were being stoned and their places of
worship desecrated, except for those Italians and Jews who used guns to
defend themselves.

While the gun control laws implemented in the old South and New York
state were not active government oppression, I claim that they were
covert oppression in the sense that they attempted to allow white
Protestant majorities to oppress the blacks, Italians, and Jews with
impunity.

How many times were guns used against oppression?  I don't know.  I
suspect people defended themselves with guns from a group of bigots many
more times than was ever reported.  In the old South, the local sherriff
was often one of the bigots in the white sheet.

- Steve Kao
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: urbin@interlan.interlan.com (Mark Urbin)
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Organization: Racal-Datacom
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:04:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.32600.16387@ms.uky.edu> uk09365@nx12.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.184232.20993@cbfsb.cb.att.com>  
>colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
>> More gray areas - what is a "threatening manner".  What about a guy
>> in a klan robe with a rifle?  Is that a legitimate RKBA or a
>> threatening manner?  I'm Jewish and I'd feel threatened - but another
>> White Supremicist wouldn't.
>	Will you feel less threatened if I show up with
>	my Galil and Desert Eagle to stand beside you..?
>	(not that I actually own either...)
>        :-)
>	<rambling> this does remind me of the (true?) story
>	of the Rabbi who was introduced to the shooting sports
>	and became quite a firearms afficionado.  His 
>	liberal leaning congregation refused to renew his
>	contract unless he agreed to a "no guns in Synagoge"
>	clause.   :-)

	There is the true story of the NYC Rabbi, Alex Sternburg is the 
name I remember, who is a high ranking Shotokan Karate-do black belt and 
runs a chain of karate schools.  I heard rumors (this is some ten years ago) 
that he was one of the self defense instructors for the local branch of the 
JDL.

>
>	I had a great-uncle (a low level judge, now deceased)
>	who probably had enough guns in his house to take
>	on the entire KKK singlehandledly.  I think the bathrooms
>	(and maybe not even there) were the only rooms of the
>	entire house that didn't have several DOZEN (or more)
>	rifles, shotguns, and pistols, even Class-III firearms
>	racked, cased, hanging, etc.  He was an FFL, Title-II,
>	and export licensed, too.  (and lived in NY ... of all things.)
>	(did a bit of gun running and merc. work, too... all
>	covertly sanctioned by the Nixon government... during the
>	1973 embargo.)
>
>
>Robert K.
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Japanese exchange student killed in Louisiana...
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:40:19 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <11NOV199221581568@vxcrna.cern.ch>, ikeda@vxcrna.cern.ch (IKEDA,M./EP) writes:

> First I did not say that every NRA member supported the homeowner's action.
> I was referring to a few posters on scj that did support the homeowner's 
> action.  Mr. Kono's post and the replies to his post remind me very much
> of debates I've had with few friends of mine who are "card-carrying NRA
> members".  They would defend the right to defend themselves to such a degree
> that it is hard to find when it would be wrong not to shoot someone on
> their property.  Thus I used that metaphor.

> The big gun debate that is so well known in the states is relatively unknown
> outside the US.  And the immediate call that the victim (Hattori) was really
> not a victim comes as a shock to non-Americans and perhaps to many Americans 
> as well.

Contrast this with the immediate call of some on SCJ that the homeowner
was clearly a depraved murderer; all on the basis of wire service reports
that contain no real evidence in either direction for any of us to make
an INFORMED judgement.  

Many American gun owners are justifiably tired of the attitude that the 
citizen with the gun is automatically assumed to be at fault -- that the
American in the blue uniform is almost always right in his use of a gun,
while the American without the "right clothes" is almost always wrong.

You believe you saw gun owners "supporting the homeowner's action."  What
I saw were people proposing different interpretations of the meager facts 
available to us through news reports, illustrating that there are a
number of possible scenarios that also fit these facts where such a 
shooting would be considered justifiable.

No one here maintains that the student was ultimately threatening the
homeowner.  But we realize that ONLY 20-20 hindsight has made the proper 
course of action obvious to all of us.  

The homeowner will be judged on what he knew at the time, as well as 
what a reasonable person should have known and/or done at the time -- 
none of which we can fairly judge from short second-hand news reports.  
Under these criteria, regardless of your emotional response and your 
perfect hindsight, the court MAY -- properly -- find the shooting
justified.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: vojak@makalu.stortek.com (Bill Vojak)
Subject: Semi-Auto Bans
Originator: vojak@makalu.stortek.com
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:45:51 GMT

 kdlin@advtech.uswest.com (David Lin) writes (about semi-auto bans)
>This is a scary topic. Let me make sure that I understand the issue.
>For example, if they ( whoever can be ) decide to ban Colt Sport HBAR
>and/or Beretta 92FS, does it mean:

>(1) We cannot buy them any more.

>or 

>(2) We have to turn them in, if we own them.

 OR how about option 3.  They  become contraban making them illegal to
 possess AND Clinton decides that if you are caught with one in your
 home, you loose your house.  In your car, you loose your car.  The
 government is in love with forefiture laws.  Why not extend it to those
 "drug guns".  The media has been laying the groundwork for years, linking
 drugs and semi-automatic every chance they can.  They imply that "Only
 drug pushers and criminals own semi-autos".  If this happens, people
 will start buying large plastic tubes, silica crystals, cosmoline (sp?),
 1000s or rounds of ammo, and shovels.

 In honesty, I can't see him banning all semi-auto.  There are too many
 hunting semi-autos out there.  I can't even see him banning existing
 pseudo-assault guns.  Instead I would imagine prohibiting new sales +
 registration of all existing semis.  (for now).  The actual ban would
 come somewhere during a second term.  Magazine limits would be another 
 approach.  They would start at 15, and when the murders didn't slow down, 
 drop it to 10. . 7. . 5. . 3. .?  To hell with the fact that the actual 
 murder rate is less then it was 10 years ago. . .

 Where would a Mini-14 fit in?  Wal-Mart sells Mini-14s that have nice
 wood stocks, no bayonet lugs, and 5 round magazines?  Far less dangerous
 then the 30-06 lever actions on the shelf right next to it.  Of course
 it's chambered for a evil-killer millitary round.

 Another question would be, where do .22s fit in?  Will they be exempt?
 Will gun makers get around the ban by re-chambering their guns for
 .222 instead of .223, and .307 instead of .308?  Didn't some gun makers
 in Europe go to 9x21 to get around the "millitary round" ban?  (Can't
 let them have 9mm, but they can have 9mm major).

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

------------------------------------------
Anti-Gun President, Anti-Gun Congress,
Better buy what you want BEFORE Dec 31.
----------------------------------------

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: urbin@interlan.interlan.com (Mark Urbin)
Subject: Re: I want my Coke
Organization: Racal-Datacom
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:31:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.103042.3224@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.30250.13950@ms.uky.edu> uk09365@nx12.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten) writes:
>>In article <wr_q-mp@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>> From elsewhere on the net:
>>> Here's what happened:  We relied on Associated Press for our national 
>>> numbers. AP said it would send out third-party numbers starting at 
>>> 10:30 p.m. They didn't. I have no idea why. 
>>According to Bernie Shaw on CNN this was because
>>many county clerks simply refused to count LP and other
>>minor party votes in time for reporting on Election night.
>Here in the "backward" South we use Voteomatics. The tallies are by
>machine. You punch it, the machine counts it. I happen to know that
>Kentucky uses voting machines. What states still use paper ballots
>that have to be counted by hand?
    In Massachusetts, I've punch holes in paper and checked off boxes with 
a #2 pencil.  I've never seen a voting machine.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 23:24:29 GMT

In article <1dpes0INN95e@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU> yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>Really?  Then why have such nationwide revolutions succeeded 65% of
>>the time since 1945?
>
>Because they were in third-world countries!  We were talking about the US,
>which is still extremely far from being a third-world country.

The govts had first-world military equipment and training.  In two
cases, where the "big war toys" lost, they had first-world armies
fighting for them.

>>>The Afghans would never have been able to counter the Soviets without
>>>importing their weapons from friendly surrounding nations.
>>
>>The majority of their weapons were self-manufactured or stolen.
>
>There is no possibility an Afghan tribesman is going to manufacture a gun.

No possibility?  They did it, just as they've done for hundreds of
years.  Mechanically incompetent people like me need tools from sears,
but ....  (BTW - When are we going to close sears?)

>>Note that a govt can't use helicopter gunships with impunity on its
>>own territory and in its own cities, no matter what the rabble is
>>doing.  A govt requires some base of support, and can't destroy it to
>>win a revolution.
>
>If the government controls the press, it will not destroy its base of
>support by fighting the guerrillas within a city.

Right.  They destroy a city block trying to take out a few people and
that block just jumps back up.  All they can do with the big war toys,
including attack helicopters, is blow up big things.  Blowing up big
things in a city destroys the govt's base of support because there's
nothing else there to be blown up.

>In Afghanistan, the government air-dropped antipersonnel mines disguised as
>toys.  Anywhere you do _that_, you can surely operate helicopter gunships
>without fear of further damaging popular opinion.

Only because popular opinion can't sink any lower after a govt pulls
that stuff.  The Soviets had to live in armed camps well before they
got this far.  They relied on outside support and transportation
because they had so little local support that they couldn't defend
local support facilities.  If they'd been operating at home, as a govt
must during a revolution, they wouldn't have had that option.

>And helicopter gunships need not be exceptionally devastating weapons.  If
>an Apache helicopter uses only its 20mm cannon (**), the damage would be no
>worse than if the same cannon were on the ground.

It isn't any different, but that doesn't mean that it is
insignificant.  It is quite impressive and does lots of damage, and
most of the damage is suffered by the govt's support base.  What a
deal....

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board)
Subject: Re: Eva Clayton bio
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:16:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.041820.2795@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
|> 
|> Please note the follow-up line.
|> 
|> In article <1992Nov10.154649.29316@rock.concert.net> bing@jazz.concert.net (Carter E. Bing) writes:
|> > I find the arugment that "we
|> >have to protect our right to bear arms to be both flawed and funny.
|> >First the average citizen can`t purchase the hardware need to
|> >wage a war with a corrupt government...
|> 
|> There are over 200 million firearms in the United States, compared
|> to under 1 million soldiers in the federal Army. Your remark seems
|> quite doubtfull. 
|> 
|> > and second the "right to
|> >bear arms" was in regards to rasing a state militia. This fact
|> >is often left out when this issue is debated.
|> 
|> Not that I've noticed...
|> However, the Second Amendment makes on mention of "state militias."
|> Nor, given the political climate when it was adopted, would
|> any empowerment of the states have been likely. The Amendment
|> mentions the militia, however this does not mean the National
|> Guard: According the the Supreme Court, "militia" as used in
|> the Second Amendment means all citizens "physically capable of
|> acting in concert for the common defense." This is fairly close
|> to the definition in current federal law (10 USC 311) of all
|> males between the ages of 17 and 45. It also resembles the definition
|> provided by such framers of the Constitution as Col. George Mason
|> (of the Virginia Militia), "everyone, except for a few public officials."

OK, but the 2nd amendment specifically mentions a "well-regulated" militia
doesn't it. How does "well-regulated" limit your definition above?

|> 
|> Given this intended meaning, it is quite easy to see how the protected
|> right (of all people to keep and bear arms) relates to the need to
|> have a militia, as stated in the first clause of the Amendment.
|> 
|> >The fact is that
|> >gun purchase should be regulated in the same manner as any
|> >dangerous product should be regulated.                     
|> 
|> In the same manner? I assume you are unfamiliar with current 
|> gun control laws. Guns are already at least as heavily regulated
|> as other, equally dangerous products. (Not that is helps: 92% of
|> the guns used in crimes were obtained _illegally_ hand thereby 
|> avoided all those regulations.)
|> 
|> By the way, you also neglect the self-defense valuse of firearms,
|> which is a major reason for private ownership. According to 
|> FBI statistics, over 80,000 crimes are prevented by private
|> citizens with guns each year. (Studies suggest a number closer to 1,000,000
|> self-defense uses per year, with most not being reported to the
|> police.)
|> 
|>                                             Frank Crary
|>                                             CU Boulder
|>
From: joel@upchrch.UUCP (Joel Upchurch  )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 00:55:16 EST
Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL

pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:

> Texas is not Georgia, and getting a conceal carry permit in Texas is no
> easy thing.  You have to have "a compelling reason."

I thought that there was no legal way for a civilian to carry concealed
at all in Texas.

(If your mail bounces use the address below.)
Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809
joel@peora.ccur.com {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel (407) 859-0982
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: skeeter@skatter.usask.ca
Subject: FAQ for t.p.g. (PLEASE READ)
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 04:29:21 GMT

Okay, several points:

1.) does tpg have a FAQ yet?  (I have not been following continuously
and our site only keeps articles for a day or so.)  If so, the next
questions/comments are irrelevant...

2.) Is anyone else interested in having a FAQ for tpg? 

3.) What sorts of things should be in it?  (I suggest stats, real-life
examples, facts about which states/provinces (let's not forget Canada!)
have which laws, etc.)

4.) How should it be organised?  Comments on style/format are welcome.

5.) I am willing to assemble/maintain the FAQ for a trial period. (I may
continue or give it up for someone else to continue...not sure yet...)

thanks in advance!

Post comments/feedback to tpg and/or send contirbutions to:

--
skeeter@skatter.usask.ca			no nifty .sig

The weight of one's wallet is inversly proportional to the size of
one's heart.   -- me 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns