HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: Warf
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: CS&E, Uni of NSW, Australia
	<BrIsGx.Mxt@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
	<LAMBERT.92Jul18035107@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<BrKoIs.337@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:51:53 GMT

>>>>> On Sat, 18 Jul 1992 06:54:28 GMT, wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) said:
> No, Mr, Lambert, I consider this to be whining on your part. If you 
> could read, which I suppose you do as well as research methodoloy,
> then you would have seem that the only thing that I accused you of
> was pedantry and didacticism in the majority of your posts. To
> say that I did elsewis is either an admission of illiteracy or
> a lie. So start reading or stop lying take your pick.

Spare us your pathetic attempts to wriggle out of the hole you have
dug for yourself.

> But really, Mr. Lambert, let's taproblem of yours to
> alt.flame. A discussion of your dishonesty is only marginally
> related to t.p.g. Regardless of what you may think, you're not
> the only one on here. This group is cluttered enough with your 
> postings.

And spare us your new found hypocritical concern for the readers of
t.p.g.  Over the past month you have deposited over a dozen postings
to this group attacking my integrity.  Requests to explain what on
earth you meant were ignored.  I tried ignoring your little outbursts,
but they continued.  So I have turned your accusations against you.
You don't seem to like it.  Funny, that.

>  Alt.flame, my site doesn't get alt.slf.pity or
> rec.self.indulgence.

Thread moved to alt.flame as per your request.

Tim

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: UC Berkeley Police Rifles? (Was Re: Hate Speech Okay, says ...) 
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:18:37 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.175247.26120@mcs.anl.gov>, shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
|> In article <1992Jul31.030143.8363@ncsu.edu>, hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
|> |> In article <1992Jul30.142947.23811@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
|> |> > ...  if you go to Berkeley
|> |> >now, you will find that the campus policecars come equipped with high
|> |> >powered rifles.   ...
|> |> 
|> |>   I can imagine shotguns in police cars, but is this comment about
|> |> "high powered rifles" based in fact?
|> |> 
|> |> --henry schaffer
|> 
|> I've herd of them(cops) using little carbines in 9mm Para and an occasional
|> .223 rem for swat use but high powered rifles? This is interesting.
|> Tell me more.

Note the original poster, the ever-hysterical anti-gunner Ed Nilges, who hasn't
gotten a single gun-fact right since a cop pointed a gun at him a few years back.

Ed's not given to being close, much less accurate, about guns.  It's likely *any*
rifle is a "high-powered" rifle to Ed.

It is likely that *some* Berkeley cops are carrying .223 rifles, either AR-15 or
Mini-14 rifles, in their cars.  This seems to be a common trend in law
enforcement lately, as there are tactical situations in which a rifle is superior
to either a handgun or a shotgun.

Note that I'm not talking about SWAT teams, here.  Those guys use some serious
ordinance.

There's nothing sinister about this, unless, of course, your name is Ed Nilges.

-- 
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: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: DJ and the land of "OZ"
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:35:48 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.180858.9361@hawkmoon.mn.org> gray@hawkmoon.mn.org (Bill Gray) writes:

>Driving is a privilege granted by the state and subject to its reasonable
>control.  

No necessarily.  Although I am yet to be convinced, a good case can be made 
that driving is a right.  If you asssume that free-assiciation is right AND 
consider that roads are built and maintained by PUBLIC funds, driving might 
well be a right that can only be restricted under special circumstances.


I would also like to note that DJ is tring HARD to come up with an 
acceptable solution to what he perceives as a problem.  He lives in a 
difference world than the rest of us.  He TRUSTS his governemnt, and also 
believes that that which is right should be law.

Flaming what he feels are reasonable suggestions is worse that useless. Far 
more useful would be efforts to demonstrate that what he perceives is not a 
problem, only a symptom.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Followup-To: soc.culture.british,alt.ireland.independence
Organization: Rice University
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 23:00:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.002050.16717@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>|><   Well lets take a look at the British. 
>|>
>
>But the idea is noit to stop hard core hardened criminals but psychos
>and casual criminals out to rob grocery stores. Armed robbery is actualy
>quite rare, most incidents turn out to have involved a dummy.

	Someone killed by terrorist attacks is still quite dead.  

>Because with guns freely circulating north of the border ther is little
>chance of gun control laws working?

	Well, I guess that explains why gun-control is SOOOOO
   effective in eliminating violence in the British colony of 
   Northern Ireland.  That open border to the North of Belfast 
   is a veritable smuggler highway.  (NOT!)  


-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  "Don't dial 911;    
 kossack@rice.edu  |   Dial M1911A and let it ring seven times." 
  +1 713 240 2073  |         -- sybok@m37-332-1.MIT.EDU (The Terminator)
  
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: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:02:04 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.030010.16169@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:

>  I just have trouble understanding how the police could possibly
>avoid trying to trace guns confiscated from criminals.  If they
>find these in NYC, find that they were originally sold in VA -
>why wouldn't they talk to the original VA purchasers and try to 
>find out where the guns went from there?  The excuse "It's hopeless
>because of strawmen." just sounds much too feeble to me.  If the
>problem is that they just don't try, then I can't imagine any new
>law working either.

When a private person sells a firearms, he is not required to keep records 
of where it went.  This makes it impossible to trace.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
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: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:30:43 GMT

In article <17018@ulysses.att.com> les@ulysses.att.com (Leslie Johnson) writes:

>Here's the list of shotguns that are banned under the New Jersey
>definition of "assault firearm":

>  - A semi-automatic shotgun with either a magazine capacity exceeding
>  six rounds, a pistol grip, or a folding stock.

Yeah, those folding stocks are deadly!  Who knows how many lives have
been saved by that provision!

(I think *I* know...)

=====================================================================
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: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: God is the NRA, and He votes.
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 03:40:49 GMT

In article <12617@inews.intel.com> bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>When it is defeated by a _large_ margin, he will use that
>as political fodder, saying there's "no support for restrictions
>on guns" or some sort of "mandate" on the NRA's version
>of the 2d amendment.

The "NRA's version of the 2d amendment" no different from that of the
Founding Fathers; the people cannot be debarred the use of arms because
an armed populace is much harder to oppress than one which has been
disarmed.  Since the arms in the hands of common people were intended
to be a CHECK on government, government has no Constitutional authority
to infringe on this right.

 "I ask, sir, what is the militia?  It is the whole people.  To
  disarm the people is the best and most efficient means to enslave
  them."  --George Mason

>				--Blair
>				  "Lightning my ass.  The UAW
>				   never strikes twice in the
>				   same place."

  "LIVE FREE OR DIE; DEATH IS NOT THE WORST OF EVILS."
       --General George Stark
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Ban the Killer of 300,000
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:06:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <csjohn.711751135@knuth>, csjohn@knuth.mtsu.edu (Bullwinkle) writes:
> Have *you* not read the 9th amendment???  
> In case you haven't, or in case you have and need refreshing, the 
> 9th amendment states:
>    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
> not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
> people."
> 
> I'm no Constitutional scholar by any means, so perhaps you have
> some insight into the issue that I don't have.  IMHO, it
> seems like the 9th simply states that the rights listed in
> the Constitution can not be used against the people to
> deny them of other rights that they currently have.
> I don't see what this has to do with our discussion. 
> How do you see it?

Not precisely.  What it says is, "You may have rights that are not
listed in the Constitution.  The government is not allowed to claim
that you don't have a right simply because that right isn't explicitly
mentioned in the Constitution."  Go back and reconsider the preceding
argument in this light.
-- 

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...
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Does Sarah Brady own a gun or not.
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:51:31 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Jul20.210656.21162@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> It wouldn't matter if there was.  Brady says that gun ownership isn't
> necessarily wrong, so an admission that she owns/carries wouldn't hurt
> her standing with anyone who believes in gun control, even though it
> would with folks who believe in gun banning.

However, it would damage her credibility severely when she can also be
quoted as saying,

"The carrying of a weapon and ownership of a weapon are two different 
things...Yes, I favor license to carry laws...But I would worry about 
a society where everybody has a gun on his person."

It certainly underscores the elitism of her underlying position.
-- 

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,alt.politics.clinton
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:53:51 GMT

In article <veal.143@utkvm1.utk.edu> veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:
>     The last case the Supreme Court heard regarding the Second Amendment
>specifically was in the late 1930's.  What it basically rules was that
>sawed off shotguns could be restricted, because that weapon had no reasonable
>use in the militia.  (They were, BTW, *wrong*, as the military has used and
>continues to use such weapons.)

Actually, the SC ruled that since no one had told them of military uses
of sawed off shotguns, it was not protected under militia use. This
was not surprising since the plaintiff had skipped bail and thus
the defense was not particularly motivated.

>     Further, it is important to note that neither the plaintiff, nor his 
>lawyer was available for the arguing of that case, so the court heard only
>one side of the argument.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
From: glngar01@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Striker 12(was weapon id.)
Date: 31 Jul 92 10:31:23 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <1992Jul29.193745.18933@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> In article <1992Jul29.184444.16721@convex.com> tighe@convex.com writes:
>>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>>In article <1992Jul29.034735.11445@convex.com> tighe@convex.com writes:
>>>>It is a 12 ga. shotgun manufactured by Cobray. It is based on a South
>>>>African weapon. It has a 12 round drum magazine. Unless you are Arnold, it
>>>>requires two hands to operate (like a 'tommy gun'). Semi-auto of course.
>>>
>>>Wrong, wrong, wrong.  It is a DOUBLE-ACTION revolving cylinder 12 shot
>>>shotgun.  It doesn't have a drum and isn't a semi-auto.  It is just a
>>>12 gauge revolver.  (The cylinder is turned with a spring; the gun has
>>>to be wound up.  Said cylinder does not swing out; there's a loading
>>>gate and ejection rod just like that found on most single-action
>>>revolvers.)
>>interested in make and caliber; what I posted was correct, correct,
>>correct. Most of the other parts of what I said were correct also.

OK ! Time to settle this!

The original Striker 12 was a 12 shot 2.75in. 12 ga. semi-auto shotgun with a
DRUM magazine.  It was SINGLE Action (with a heavy pull though you could index
the drum without firing a round, Double action would mean you could pre-cock
the striker for a lighter single action pull). It COULD be fired one-handed 
(it was designed as such).  It was NOT manually cycled and did NOT have to be
wound (it aint a Calico) a spring loaded cocking lever is present on the right
side of the barrel.  With the original, one had to manually eject the expended
 cartidges through a loading gate and  then reload.

As local gunlaws made it bloody difficult to licence a semi-auto shotgun, the
design was modified.  A new version the Protecta was introduced, basically
identical to the Stiker but that it was classified as a "pump action"...
Cocking was identical but to cycle the shotgun one has to either rotate the
forward pistol-grip to the left or rotate the rear grip to the right, which has
the same effect. The drum now has a dust cover over the loading gate and
automatically ejects FIRED rounds. External chokes are now also available.

My personal opinion is that it is a most effective and highly reliable weapon.

That's all folks!

Gary Glen-Young                 E-mail:glngar01@uctvax.uct.ac.za
"The Token South African"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:49:55 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.025710.1571@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.203354.28594@ttinews.tti.com> reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland) writes:
>>That's YOU?  You, THE RIFLEMAN, are GREG MCLAREN of MIT?  Thanks for
>
>Hi Greg!!!  Don't worry about being "outed."  We're all gunnies here...well,
>most of us, anyway.

Hey, I DIDN'T out him!  He outed himself.  I merely rubbed his nose in it.

I would never out someone who wanted to remain anonymous.  I wouldn't even
have rubbed his nose in it if he hadn't been so obnoxious so much of the
time.  I'm frequently pretty obnoxious too, but I sign my real name.

I share Kirk Hays' hope that Greg will drop the silly pseudonymn.

=====================================================================
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: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:22:50 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = (Andy Freeman) writes:
>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:

>>I know people in favor of banning TYPES of guns...including that flaming
>>liberal Barry Goldwater, who said of semi-automatics (paraphrased): "Anyone
>>who needs more than one bullet to kill a deer shouldn't be hunting anyway."

>Yawn; at most that's an argument about deer hunting.  (Wanna bet ol'
>Barry carries a repeater and more than one cartridge?  Wanna bet he
>doesn't meet the minimum standard he proposes?)

Yawn.  When confronted with facts, just take them out of context and make
up hypotheticals.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Nothing to do to save his life..."| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: Jeopardy
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:02:42 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.172836.28946@csc.ti.com>, wall@ra.csc.ti.com (Raj Wall) writes:
|> 
|> On the tv gameshow Jeopardy last week the answer in the category
|> "Organizations" was (paraphrased):
|> 
|> 	"Ambrose Burnside was the first president of this organization
|> 	 devoted to firearms safety."

That's GENERAL Ambrose Everett Burnside, thank you.  The father of "sideburns",
as well.  Born 1824, died 1881.

|> 
|> and the question:
|> 
|> 	"What is the NRA?"

Did any of them get it right?

I hate Jeopardy - it's too easy.  That is, it's too easy once you've memorized
one or two dictionaries, and several different encyclopedias, as I did in my
misspent youth.

-- 
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: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: Summary: "Inside" news program covers GUNS
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 00:07:32 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.204820.15421@ms.uky.edu> uk09365@nx02.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.163540.536@microsoft.com> alane@microsoft.com (Alan  
>Ezekiel) writes:
>	What kind of knives?  If he means kitchen knives, etc. the
>man gets my July "David Dinkins" award for stupidity.
>[named for the intellectually challenged mayor of New York City
>who responded to the STABBING death of Provo, UT tennis fan
>Brian Watkins by insisting that NYC needed stricted gun control.]

He probably means a mandatory one-year-in-jail for anyone caught possessing
scissors without rounded ends.  Everyone knows pointed scissors were
designed to kill.  :-}
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:16:11 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Jul27.193836.4521@ms.uky.edu>, uk09365@nx21.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten) writes:
> 	It amazes me that anyone could give credence to
> Hinckley's views on gun control and still keep a straight face.

Why not?  They give credence to Ted Bundy's view on pornography.
-- 

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...
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:18064 alt.politics.clinton:883
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Waiting periods and rights
Date: 27 Jul 92 19:16:04 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <1992Jul27.172655.21544@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell) writes:
>I think it's useful to differentiate those who wish a short waiting
>period for "cooling-off" or whatever else from a bona fide crackpot
>who happen to edit a small-town newspaper.

San Jose is not a small town. It is larger than San Francisco and the
SJMN is probably more influential than SF's papers. Furthermore, their
attitude matches that of other media like NBC ("the 2nd should be
abolished") and Time ("an editorial closing of ranks that guns are
bad").

But let's forget the media. What do YOU think of waiting periods?

1) How long should they be?

2) Would you increase the number in 1) if it didn't have an effect
on crime?

3) Would you make any exceptions for people who already own a gun?

4) Would you make any exceptions for people who have received threats?

5) Would you require a background check during that time or is the
only purpose to require a delay?

6) Would you allow a local police chief to extend the wait as long
as he wants by simply not acknowleging a notice?

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: Call off the dogs. was Re:Waiting periods for guns and domestic violenc
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 04:02:54 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.171713.57578@cc.usu.edu>, slzm9@cc.usu.edu writes:

|>    Because I have the right to an opinion and that's my opinion.

The old democratic fallacy - "my opinion's as good as anyone else's."

Ignorance and foolishness without end.

Tell me, does your opinion allow you to unilaterally abrogate my rights?

The dogs have just begun to savage you, youngster.

-- 
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