HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Mike Tighe <tighe@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Black Market guns
Originator: tighe@convex1.convex.com
Reply-To: tighe@convex.com
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Texas
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 16:28:48 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>
>	Don Baldwin was visiting Iowa this past week, and when I mentioned
>that rifles and shotguns were sold at K-mart, he didn't believe it.  So I
>took him to K-mart and showed him.  While I was there, I bought some .30-30
>ammunition as it will be a few weeks until I can get back to my reloading
>press.  Guess what?

If Don Baldwin is shocked to see guns being sold in K-Mart (which even NJ
does), he would really flip if he came to Texas, etc and witnessed a 2000
table gun show, where just about anything that shoots is available.

>	Ammunition that can be fired in a pistol, when sold, must be
>recorded along with the buyers name, ssn, address, and the like.

I think this is K-Mart policy. When I lived in NJ years ago, K-marts there
did this too. It is the only place I know of that does it. Since all other
other dealers do not, I doubt it is [national] law; why they would risk
their FFL over something like this? BTW, you can buy ammo mail order since
1986. Too bad you can't buy a new SMG. Doesn't sound like a fair trade to
me :-(.

Note of course, that this is highly discriminatory on several counts, an
invasion of privacy (why SSN?), never mind the fact that it is totally
useless. I suggest avoiding K-Mart.
-- 
Mike Tighe, (214) 497-4206
tighe@convex.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: ICLU Commission on the 2nd Amendment and Gun Control
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:57:36 GMT

In article <17mpc6INNdqc@agate.berkeley.edu>, fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu
(Frank Crary) writes:

> In article <1992Aug28.005816.19621@news.cs.indiana.edu> "Paul Hager"
> <hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu> writes:
>
> >o	the 2nd amendment permits state regulation of firearms via
> >	the "well-regulated militia" clause but prohibits federal
> >	regulation;
> 
> The extent to which the states can regulate firearms ownership is
> debatable, but this authority doesn't come from the militia clause
> [...]

I have to question if the States have any more power to control this
than the Feds do.  If the Bill of Rights are protections for the
Citizens, then neither the Feds, nor the States may "..infringe..".
I don't recall hearing that States may seize private property
without compensation, or that someone can "...be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law.." by the States.  
Why should they have any additional power w.r.t the 2nd?

Article 4, Sec 2, paragraph 1:

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges
and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."

14th Amendment:

"... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall
any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws."

I think the Bill of Rights is a prohibition on interference of
those Rights listed, and are extended to all Citizens (and by the
14th, any person residing in the US).  These restrictions apply to
the Feds, States, and local govts.

--
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
From: robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 3
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:25:43 GMT

bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) writes:
> robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne) wirtes:
> >Sigh.  The police should have hought they were apprehending a SUSPECTED
> >murderer and robber that was living with  with his totally innocent
> >wife and kids.  The fact that the looked upon the suspect as already
> >guilty is a large part of why Tony ended up shooting somebody.
> 
> No, they looked on the suspect as likely to try to kill them or hold the
> children hostage.  The fact that you think a desperate person won't hold
> their own children hostage or even kill them shows you don't really
> understand the criminal mind.  No, that's too strong.  I don't
> understand it either, but I do have a pretty good idea, based on past
> experience, of how far some of these people will go.

Then why a no-knock raid?  This is guaranteed to endanger the children
and other innocents more than a criminal who _might_ take his wife and
children hostage.

How many criminals have killed their wife and children in a bid to
avoid arrest?  I'd bet it's less than the number of innocents killed in
no-knocks.

Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:20401 soc.culture.french:6370
From: claude@isle.Eng.Sun.COM (Claude Manoit)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.culture.french
Subject: Re: Guns, and the necessity to trust our governement.
Date: 1 Sep 1992 07:06:05 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: isle


Regarding the laws in such and such area of United States, I have a
question (please don't rush as seems to be the case so often; breathe;
prepare your answer; breathe again; re-read it; remove the remaining insults;
breathe once more; make sure you include valuable information; a last
breath; remove the libellous comment and the last insult; close your
eyes and visualize a few people receiving your post; OK you are ready
now !-); wait a bit to make sure 10 people haven't answered with the
requested information. Thank you.

To which extent can a local/county/state gun-control law be enforced (by 
that I mean preventing the law from being broken) in United States since 
it is so easy to go from one locality/county/state to the other and carry
weapons around? For example how efficient is a law in NY city stricter 
than say NY state? (the exemple is not supposed to be correct).
I'm sure this issue has been addressed by the relevant legislative branch
somehow. I just don't remember having seen the rational.

And for the Europeans: with the EEC normalizing all the rules and
regulations and opening the borders, the question of gun-control
must be addressed somewhere. Or maybe not (I doubt any thing so precise
would be in the Maastritch treaty). Any fact?

Thank you,

-Claude

PS: the breathe thing was a joke since one is not suppose to breathe
while pulling the trigger, I wish that way to avoid becoming a target!-)


"Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it
is time to reform." - Mark Twain

"The future isn't what it used to be." --A.C. Clarke

I used to be indecisive, but now.... I'm not so sure!

Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:20276 alt.politics.clinton:3362 alt.politics.bush:3321
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:51:26 GMT
Organization: Twilight Zone

In article <27AUG92.11530738@umbc1.umbc.edu>, williamf@umbc1.umbc.edu says:

	Raft of painfully ignorant, naive and simplistic drivel mercifully axed
	
>    Stay Easy,
>     TheBigBopper

	Methinks perhaps "TheBigBopper" has been bopping the little bopper
	a wee bit too much and with unnecessary fury.  Better cool it.

	-Andy V.
From: earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Seattle Buy-Back Update
Date: 3 Sep 92 23:04:47 GMT
Organization: Bit Flippers, Inc.

>...
>Seattle's two-week gun buy-back program was
>holstered at mid-day today as sponsors ran out of
>money.
>
>By noon 211 weapons were turned in to Seattle
>police precincts in exchange for $50 bank vouchers
>in the no-questions-asked program.  That exceeded
>yesterday's first day total of 204 for the whole
>day.  And it exceeded the $20,000 that the
>sponsors had collected.
>...

These gun "buy-back" programs are actually starting to sound like a great 
idea.  It's not likely that anyone who knows beans about guns will turn
their guns in (unless they have a gun that jams every 10 rounds :-) for $50.
And people who do turn in good working guns for $50 are not using good
judgement and might shoot themselves anyway, so it's great that they are
turning them in.  I wouldn't want them having a gun if they're that stupid!
As long as the taxpayer isn't funding this scheme, I have no problems with
it.  It makes me happy to see people writing checks for such a good cause.
I wish I could buy the guns at $55-100 and keep them for that rainy day when
all hell breaks loose (riots, 8+ earthquakes, etc.) so I can *rent* them to
desperate people for $500 a day ($5/round).

It's the American way!
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Clinton and Suicides, injuries, and Vigilantees.
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:32:18 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) / 12:50 pm  Aug 24, 1992 /
>In article <4400230@iftccu.boeing.com> bressler@iftccu.boeing.com 
>(Rick Bressler) writes:
>>Well, not everything you 'hear' is true.   I have in fact held my breath 
>>until I've passed out.  (It happened to be a choice between that and
>>breathing water.)  That is quit a bit worse than simply passing out 
>>from gradual use of the oxygen in an enclosed area.  It wasn't so bad.
>
>Wait a minute.  You passed out under water and you're still twitching?

I thought it would be obvious that somebody had hauled me out. Drowning 
isn't always permanent.  For the REALLY curious, I happened to become 
disabled during a SCUBA diving test.  Several instructor were there and 
I was pulled out before I took in a lot of water.  I recovered almost 
immediately, with out CPR or anythign.  There was no brain damage, at least
none that anybody has been able to prove...... :-).

As a side effect this totally cured me of any residual fear of drowning.  I 
know now that it doesn't really hurt.  (This doesn't mean I want to try 
it again!)  It also drove home the rule, "Don't dive alone."

Rick.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:20279 talk.politics.animals:7496
From: mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:37:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: BNR, Inc. Research Triangle Park, NC



 Steve Pope writes:
>Bullshit.  Hunting license fees constitute a teeny fraction of
>the money spent on the environment.

  According to my NRA-ILA calendar:	
 Hunting and fishing license fees and excise taxes fund more than 
 75% of all state fish and wildlife management programs-including 
 those for non-game species. Less than 10% of state fish and wildlife
 budgets come from general taxpayer funds.
  The federal duckstamp program alone has a revenue near $14 million.
  The excise taxes are a big thing guns, ammo, bows, arrows and a 
 lot of other stuff carry this tax. So even the target shooter is helping	 support wildlife. 	
   
 
    Myron
  NRA, IPSC


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

 The opinions included in this post are my sole responsibility.
 And are protected by the First Ammendment and guarnteed by the 
 Second.
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: CLINTON NEW TEXT: GUN CONTROL
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:30:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Totally Unorganized

In article <1992Aug25.200408.21293@athena.mit.edu> sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
|In article <1992Aug25.155111.7833@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> 
|rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:
|>|  In particular, in consultation both with gun manufacturers[1] and
|>|  concerned citizen groups[2], the Bush Administration has:
|>
|>[1] Ruger. Bill Ruger.
|
|That's "Brady Bill Ruger" or "Bill 'Benedict Arnold' Ruger".  With
|friends like ol' Ruger. . . . Hell, we don't even need enemies.  Note
|also that "Gun Digest" accepts tons of advertising from Ruger and always
|features one of his products on the cover.  The 1992 Gun Digest says,
|"The gun owners protesting Ruger & Mossberg carried a big banner, but didn't
|make much of an impression."  Perhaps the 1993 Gun Digest will have 
|another "Ruger Product" on the cover, like the text of an "assault weapons"
|ban with the President's signature on it.

Unfortunately, inside the front cover of this months _American Rifleman_
there is an ad from Ruger touting their Ruger Express turn-bolt rifle,
a 'nice' gun that someday will become a dreaded sniper rifle (or perhaps
it groups so loosly it will never make the definition).

`If you want the best, you owe yourself a Ruger Express'

When pigs sprout wings and fly...

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp                                  (Pat Myrto),  Seattle, WA
                      If all else fails, try:
         ...!uunet!{pilchuck, polari}!rwing!pat
WISDOM:    "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket" 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:20212 soc.culture.usa:6910 soc.culture.japan:7380
From: tedrick@whistle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.japan
Subject: Re: Minolta CEO attacks US Second Amendment (American guns)
Date: 27 Aug 1992 08:36:13 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: whistle.berkeley.edu

<Sam Kusumoto, chairman and CEO of Minolta Corporation is quoted
<in  _The Clarion-Ledger_ of Jackson, Miss., as follows,
<according to a story by Dan Davis:

<     "We don't know why the American government still
<      permits people to possess a gun. The country that
<      teaches Western civilization to Japanese still
<      permits people to carry guns. This we do not
<      understand."

<Geez, Sam, welcome to the ranks of Japanese-Businessmen-
<Caught-With-Foot-in-Mouth.

<I'll remember your comments next time I'm shopping for any
<product made by Minolta. Personally, I think you may still
<have a bit left to learn about "Western civilization".

He may not have understood that American democracy is based on
the idea that a democratic society cannot exist if the average
citizen does not have the right to own state-of-the art weapons,
along with the right to free speech (so the masses have access to
both the information and the force necessary to resist tyranny). That 
was a revolutionary idea at the time, and two centuries later democracy 
still has quite a ways to go before statist authoritarianism is 
eradicated from the world.

Perhaps he equates civilization with taming the human spirit (for
the benefit of large organizations) rather than freedom (releasing
the human spirit from the control of large organizations, the key
idea underlying western civilization since ancient Greece.) Most 
Asiatic societies stress conformity rather than freedom.

-- 
"An army is composed of idle and inactive men. Unless the general has a constant
eye on them this artificial machine will fall to pieces. If my soldiers began to
think, not one would remain. All that can be done is give them 'esprit de corps'
and keep them more afraid of their officers than the enemy" -Frederick the Great
From: erudnick@pica.army.mil (FSAC-SID)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Hurricane Andrew
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:55:36 GMT



The story I hear about the aftermath of the hurricane in Florida goes
something like this:

After the city of Homestead was damaged, moderate numbers of looters came
from Miami. These were repelled by the local citizenry using their
personal arms. The looters then returned in much larger numbers, with
true military equipment (full auto weapons, sniper rifles, night vision),
and shot anybody who resisted. This is the reason Bush sent in the
troops.

Of course, no mention in our "free" press. Anybody hear something like
this?


Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
Protect the Second Amendment - boycott Ruger products
"That's not true," Bill hissed to his lawyer. "The facts are-"
"Don't worry about facts, Bill, no one else here does. Facts can't
alter this case."       -"Bill the Galactic Hero" Harry Harrison

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: RKBA - are you missing the point?
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:36:48 GMT

In article <DLB.92Aug31111219@fanny.wash.inmet.com>, dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com
(David Barton) writes:

> The quotes that Mr. Tavarres (sorry, I think that is the spelling, but
> I may be wrong) are entirely correct; however, the jury judges the law
> in the process of rendering its verdict.  A jury does not issue
> rulings, and its decisions do not have the weight of precedence.
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'm not entirely convinced by this.  I think *any* previous case can
be cited in court.  How much weight it carries may depend on which
court the verdict comes from.  Rulings probably carry more weight than
verdicts, but there's no reason you shouldn't be able to cite previous
verdicts from a similar case.  (is there a *legal* definition of
"precedent" which differs from common use?).

-- 
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
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Time to Fight
Date: 27 Aug 92 11:49:41 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


          *>*> WAR ON DRUGS <*<*
         (salute when you read that)
---

Two Possible Salutes:
           "Sig Heil!"
or (my favorite)
               Fist with middle finger raised

Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-P  NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E"
Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia
Send e-mail for an application and more information
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Whether the authorities be invaders or merely local tyrants, the 
effect of such [gun] laws is to place the individual at the mercy of 
the state, unable to resist."
       - Robert Heinlein, in a 1949 letter concerning "Red Planet"
-- 
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: RKBA - are you missing the point?
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:22:11 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 92Aug31111219@fanny.wash.inmet.com, dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes:
>In article <81572@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@bcsaic.boeing.com (Rick
>Wojcik) writes:
>
>   Correct.  The courts have the right to interpret the law.  If you
>   disagree with the court verdict, which may be a jury verdict, then
>   you have no further recourse.  And, BTW, the Supreme Court can
>   overturn jury rulings.  There are no juries at that level.
>
>Would you mind greatly explaining the above?  The Supreme Court can
>overturn juries, when there are no juries at that level?  And what,
>precisely is a "jury ruling"?

Thanks for clearing up some of the issues surrounding jury verdicts.  I
meant nothing special by the term "ruling", and I accede to your usage.
None of these terminological issues seems to bear on my point that the
courts alone determine what the law means, even when that interpretation
seems to contradict original intent.  (Not that I am conceding the
t.p.g. standard claims about "original intent".)  The Supreme Court does
not overturn juries, but I presume that it has the power to overturn
the laws under which people have been convicted by juries.

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

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
From: dcwst8+@pitt.edu (David C Winters)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Free NRA memberships
Date: 29 Aug 92 20:33:15 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Aug28.220518.22117@SSD.intel.com> hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
>[Well, now that Bart Simpson is an NRA member...]

Ummm...right.  Did I miss something unimportant?

--
I hate my .sig...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: Hurricane Andrew
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:39:57 GMT

In article <9209021610.aa09829@claudius.pica.army.mil>, erudnick@pica.army.mil (FSAC-SID) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> The story I hear about the aftermath of the hurricane in Florida goes
|> something like this:
|> 
|> After the city of Homestead was damaged, moderate numbers of looters came
|> from Miami. These were repelled by the local citizenry using their
|> personal arms. The looters then returned in much larger numbers, with
|> true military equipment (full auto weapons, sniper rifles, night vision),
|> and shot anybody who resisted. This is the reason Bush sent in the
|> troops.

Sorry, Ed, but this story sets off my BS alert.

Looters are the bottom feeders of the criminal class - they're not going to 
do anything but flee if resisted.  They don't want to be shot, and they won't
mess with people who run them off.  That's human nature for this subclass of
humans, IMHO.

The reason troops are sent in is that the local infra-structure for housing,
clothing, food and water delivery, and law-enforcement is in shambles.  Armies,
just due to their nature, provide those things as part of their logistical
operations, and can thus sustain civilians for periods of time after a disaster.

No deaths from looters have been reported, and the media is big on death,
particularly violent death, so it is doubtful they'd cover that up.

|> Of course, no mention in our "free" press. Anybody hear something like
|> this?

The press has an agenda, and that's to sell more advertising - covering up such a
story would not help sell more advertising.

All of the above is Real Truth(TM), proved by assertion, of course :-)

-- 
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: mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030)
Subject: Re: ICLU Commission on the 2nd Amendment and Gun Control
Organization: BNR, Inc. Research Triangle Park, NC
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 10:36:57 GMT

>Frank Crary wrote:
We certainly do: Look up the Army's "Director of Civilian Marksmanship"
>program. Studies have shown that soldiers, who were experienced with
>firearms before being drafted, are much better soldiers (in terms of
>using their weapons effectively) and have a much higher chance of
>surviving combat. 
 
  For a first hand account of a rifle competitor in combat. Pick up	
 a copy of "Shots Fired in Anger" it's a true story of WWII. 
 
    Myron
  NRA, IPSC


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

 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