HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Re: ACLU's "Campaign for the Bill of Rights '92"
Date: 15 Aug 92 09:36:26 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
>alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:
>> >I wonder what would happen, if the NRA threw it's weight behind Marrou.
>>
>>It would further the popular perception of the NRA as a bunch of
>>lunatic-fringe wackos.  And Marrou would still lose.
>
>Hmm, I don't see it that way.  For one thing, I guess I see people who
>want to restrict our choices in life as the wackos...

Yes.  I said it would further "the popular perception" of the NRA as
wackos; I did not say that I agreed with that perception.

>Also, neither Bush nor Clinton consider RKBA to be important, so why
>not support a party that supports true freedom, instead of political
>headgames?

What purpose would be served?

Remember the strategy which the anti-gun organizations have been
using against us with such success.  They don't try to ban guns
immediately; they work in stages.  FIRST they license them.  THEN
they register some kinds.  NEXT they restrict and regulate.
FINALLY they confiscate and ban.  Step by step, stage by stage,
until all the little victories add up to a single, big victory
which could never have been achieved with a single jump.  (*)

Endorsing Marrou at this time is a single, big jump.  The NRA
should be focussing its efforts on fights it can WIN.

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

(*)  As has been mentioned a number of times on this newsgroup, there is
     a quote from Pete Shields (former HCI chairman) to this effect.  I
     believe the quote even appears in his book -- if anybody wants a
     reference, I will look it up and post the exact quotation.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:19557 talk.politics.animals:7244
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: No Knocks
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:59:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.144915.11756@stortek.com>, vojak@icebucket.stortek.com
(Bill Vojak) writes:

>  Also some mentioned about shooting back and "taking a few with you".
>  One problem I see is that I may never realize that these are cops
>  until the shooting is over. Just imagine: It's 1AM, your in bed.
>  Since you are NOT a criminal, you hardly expect a SWAT team to come
>  kicking your door in. Suddenly the dogs jump up and start going
>  crazy. You grab the gun just as you hear windows break and the door
>  being kicked in. Even if they DO yell "police", why should I believe
>  them. I am NOT a criminal. As far as I am concerned, they are in
>  my house illegaly, and I would have grave doubts as to if they really
>  were police. Damn right I'd start shooting. And there would be no

Wasn't there a recent case of some thugs running around doing this?
They'd yell "POLICE", and kick in the door, and then have fun with
the family that had been caught off guard (uh, that is they did
this until someone shot them...).

-- 
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: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: 17 Aug 1992 05:30:54 GMT
Reply-To: kossack@qvi.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: A Glorified, Overheated Swamp

In article <4400215@iftccu.boeing.com> bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) writes:
- My biggest question is:  What the hell ever happened to the line,
- 'This is the police.  You are surrounded. Come out with your hands up.!'???

	Maybe you should ask the officers involved.

- Did he do anything wrong?  Probably not, in my opinion.  At most he made
- a very human mistake.  Perhaps not even that.  I've done enough role
- playing and training to realize how quickly it happens.  Look at it from
- Tony's viewpoint.  He has been told to storm this house that contains
- vicious murderers.  He has been told that they are armed and dangerous.

	So, he didn't do anything wrong.  However, you later claim 
   that I am partially to blame.  Funny, last I heard, I'm not the   
   guy who bursts into the homes of innocent poeple based on an 
   anonymous phone call.  I didn't choose a career where I would be
   paid to storm residences to arrest some guy.  Maybe I'm completely 
   out of touch with the real world, but I would think it would be 
   safer for all concerned to nab the suspect on the way to work or 
   some such, rather than storming a house.  I must be naive.  


- Remember, each of you.  Any time you permit these 'storm trooper'
- tactics be used for any reason, YOU are partially at fault.  The blame
- extends to some extent to each of us.  I feel fairly safe in stating
- that this situation resulted from gross violations of reasonable police
- operating procedures and the constitution itself.

        You claim that I am partially at fault because I "permit"   
   these types of military-style assaults?  Why?  I oppose them.  
   Further, I inform my elected reprehensibles that I oppose this
   kind of excessive force.  What _more_ do you want me to do?  I 
   don't think you're suggesting that I should use violence against 
   the police to prevent such civil rights violations.  Are you?  
   

-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  "No se caza para matar, sino, al reves,                
 kossack@rice.edu  |   se mata para haber cazado."               
  +1 713 240 2073  |                               -- Ortega
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:41:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T


|>Better dust off those history books; there's a lot to learn there about
|>why some people think an armed populace is a good thing.

|I think arms are good, but not for overthrowing the US Govt. It'll
|never happen. Who you gonna shoot at?

Hmm, curiously, in the ABC nitwit production "Amerika," they had
the same storyline. ["Amerika" was about a Soviet takeover of the
U.S.]

| Where? Why?

Can't we simply look at who is in commanding the situation, who is
enforcing the situation and who is upholding the so-called "laws"
in the judiciary? Wouldn't looking at the newspaper editorial boards
tell us something? With all this targeting information availible NOW,
why would you have any problem at all determining _WHO_ to "shoot at?"

|When the police want you, they'll come for you in the middle of the
|night, your neighbors will ignore it, and the police would just
|LOVE to shoot you if you thought of resisting. So what you gonna do?

Well, what is stop you from using silenced weapons to engage in the
same sort of assassination of the police, politicians and judiciary?

What's to stop you from planting explosives?

From destroying telecommunications links?

From destroying power towers? [The Israelis were so concerned about
this that they contracted Sargent & Lundy to design a power tower
that would stand on three legs if one of the legs were destroyed
by insurgent forces.]

From destroying streets? Sewage systems? Power distribution?

It takes very little ingenuity to dream up of things an _INDIVIDUAL_
could do to destroy the very "order" the government claims to be
upholding.

|Go downtown & shoot up the IRS building - the police will have you
|and 'your revolutionaries' gunned down quicker than you can say
|Posse Comitatus.

"The Turner Diaries," a white-racist novel, has the insurgent forces
destroying FBI headquarters with a truck bomb; the FBI thinks the
author is a dangerous person.

You can engage in destroying the infrastructure of government, you can
engage in the assassination of government leadership, of the judiciary,
of the so-called "law enforcement" sent to enforce "The New Order."

All it takes is the bravery of a 'reasonable number' of individuals
to engage in this counterforce over a 'reasonably widespread' area
across the country to inspire fencesitting "Oh, they will never come
after little-ole'-me with my .22" to action.

Will this happen? Who knows?
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: A question on U.S. Constitution
Date: 22 Aug 92 17:04:40 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: locusts.berkeley.edu

In article <92Aug22.055354edt.177@smoke.cs.toronto.edu> quoctp@cs.toronto.edu writes:
>In the constitution of the U.S., the Fifth Amendment states that
>no person can be deprived of his/her property without "due process
>of law". Does this mean that a government (federal, state or city)
>can pass a law, then can deprive someone of his/her property by using that
>law? (I have gun confiscations in mind).

That is exactly what it means, though the law must also be within
the government's legal powers (gun confications by the federal government
would take a little work to justify in this regard) and not violate
any other part of the Constitution (and state Constitution/city charter
for local laws). Gun confications are a fairly clear and direct violation
of the Second Amendment, so such a law would be unconstitutional. _Car_
confication, for example, would be legal.

>Does passing a law saying that you
>have to destroy something that you currently own, without compensation
>violate this Amendment?

Any law requiring you to give up something, requires "just compensation."
Making you destroy it yourself is no different from requiring you to
turn it over to the police, in this regard. (Actually, a recent ruling
extended "just compensation" to losses from regulation: South Carloina
had to pay for losses in real estate value caused by their ban on
beach front construction.)

                                                   Frank Crary
						   CU Boulder
						   (even though
						   I'm still using
						   my Berkeley account)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 18:05:23 GMT

In article <36941@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson) writes:
>>Like the helmet bill, they didn't actually care about "trivia"
>>like whether or not their claims were true or not.
>
>Helmet law?  You mean the claims are wrong, and responsible drivers
>are safe on motorcycles without a helmet?  Wow...

Nobody said that.  What we're talking about is the claim that helmetless
riders impose a great financial liability on society.  The guy pushing
the bill admitted to a newspaper that he MADE UP the numbers, yet the
bill stands.

I wore a helmet before the law was passed but I oppose the spirit of the
bill intensely.  It's not the government's place to tell me to wear a
helmet, wash behind my ears, etc.

   don
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Vigilanteism
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:28:25 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <4400221@iftccu.boeing.com>, bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) writes:
> A vigilante is one who takes the law into their own hands and punishes AFTER 
> the fact.

On that note, here's a related posting:

from the Worcester Telegram & Gazette (remember them?):

VICTIM TAKES LAW INTO HIS OWN HANDS

Bridgeport CT (AP) -- A man who lost his home to arson and his car to 
theft apprehended two men at gunpoint after he spotted them in his
stolen car in a supermarket parking lot.

Raymond A. Bergen, 52, of Shelton, went to Bridgeport on Sunday after-
noon, apparently to try to find his car after it was stolen, police said.

According to police reports, Bergen was at the Waldbaum's supermarket
when he saw two men pulling into the parking lot in his 1984 Fleetwood
Cadillac.

When the men later returned to the vehicle with a child, Bergen attempted
to detain both men, but they would not heed his demands, police said.

DISPLAYED HANDGUN

Bergen then displayed a handgun and held the men at bay, drawing a crowd
of people until police arrived.  Police said Bergen has a permit for the
gun.

Police charged Eladio "Ging" Martinez, 24, whose address is known, with
first-degree larceny, sixth-degree larceny, theft of license plate, risk
of injury to a minor, and criminal impersonation.  Bond was set at $100,000.

Also arrested was Padro Rivera, 51, of Bridgeport, who was charged with
first-degree larceny, sixth-degree larceny, risk of injury to a minor, 
and theft of plates.

Last week while Bergen and his wife were on vacation, their house
burned down.

Shelton Fire Marshal James Tortora said Monday that investigators
believe the car was stolen the night of the fire.  He would not comment
on whether that made the two people found in the car prime suspects in
the arson.

HOUSE EXPLODED

The fire was started in three different locations, and an accelerant
believed to be gasoline was found at the scene, Tortora said.  The 
custom-built house exploded and burst into flames.

The blaze raged for several hours.  Eight firefighters were injured
before the fire was put out around 3 a.m. last Wednesday.

# # # #

Now.  Does anyone see any justification for the headline that the 
T&G gratuitously slapped onto the story?

I've attempted to call the PD to ask if charges have even been
brought against the victim, but no one who knows anything will be
in before Saturday.
-- 

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: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Political Assasinations (Was: No charges filed in SWAT killing)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 04:37:20 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) writes:

>/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) /  2:53 pm  Aug 20, 1992 /

>>Of course, this requires real police work, not the gun-happy, cowboy,
>>kill-'em-all,let-God-sort-'em-out mentality rampant today.  If you think
>>I'm kidding, find a way to sit in a ready room sometime and listen
>>to these goons talk about getting horny during and after a raid.

>Not a flame or anything, nor should this be construed as support for 
>illegal police tactics, BUT this is (one of the) normal reactions 
>to extreme stress and danger.  Research your subject.   

>Just because it seems unusual to you, sitting before your terminal, 
>doesn't mean it is abnormal.

You don't find it unusual for someone to get horny from the act  of
killing someone?  Do you suppose these are the kinds of people who 
should be allowed to carry society's guns?

Let't try this on for size.  I found it ghastly sitting in the ready room
with 'em.  I'd suggest YOU research your subject.  I can tell you this.
I've been shot at more than once.  Unlike Dan, I was fast enough to duck.
I had a whole bunch of emotions but one of them was NOT that my dick got
hard.  If you think killing or coming close to killing is a normal
sexual stimuli, you're a real sick puppy.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: Mike Tighe <tighe@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: UFO "October Surprise" and USA TAKEOVER?!
Originator: tighe@convex1.convex.com
Reply-To: tighe@convex.com
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Texas
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:29:58 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.

Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:

>People keep saying this as though it means
>        Restrictive gun laws cause high crime rates.
>A rather more likely situation is
>        High crime rates cause restrictive gun laws;

I agree. High crime (real or imagined) usually results in calls for more
gun-control. If these controls are enacted, the result is then a crime rate
that 'goes through the roof'. Examples include LA, New York, Washington DC.

If gun-control actually did something to lessen crime, you would be able to
point out some cities with high crime, that enacted strong gun-control and
had their crime rates decrease.  You can't.

Likewise, there are plenty of places with little crime, and almost
non-existent gun-control Example - Vermont.

I imagine there are also places with strong gun-control, and little crime.
But I am not aware of any in the US. This leads to the conclusion that
crime is independent of guns. 

This makes sense, since most crime does not involve a gun or any other
weapon. Most crimes are, vandals, theft, embezzlement, spouse abuse, child
abuse, etc. Only a small percentage of crime involve weapons and
confrontations with victims.
-- 
Mike Tighe, (214) 497-4206
tighe@convex.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 21:31:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: N/I

In article <PA142548.239.714228520@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <9b!nr1c.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
[ ... ]
>>Which is of course why A. Einstein lent his prestige and name to the
>>effort (inideed, initaited by a letter with his signature) to build the
>>most destructive weaponry we have yet devised. Yep, save the bunnies,
>>but nuke the humans by city-full.
>>
>Dr. Einstein built the atomic bomb with the hope of ending war.  At the 
>time, he expected the bomb to be placed under the control of a multi-
>national organization and used as a deterrant.

Just as some pressing for more gun laws say they "hope" to end crime.
What they actually _get_ of course are more NYC's, LA's, and DC's.

Similarly, PETA and its littermates will end up with feedlots where there
used to be deer, and chemical fiber plants where there used to be rabbits.

Shit for brains and all, you just gotta admire their big hearts.   :-)  :-)
--------
Sen. Terry Sanford, who as Governor of North Carolina refused Police protection
to a Civil Rights march, supports your Right to Keep and Bear Sporting Goods.
From: dadams@cray.com (David Adams)
Subject: Re: Demo Gun Control & just who were the v
Reply-To: dadams@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:52:33 CDT

In article garyd@netcom.com, garyd@netcom.com (Gary Dietz) writes:
|Richard,
|
|Did the people who put down the coup in the ex-Soviet Union have a lot of 
|guns?  If they had, I think that the nervous and hungry army would have
|done some shooting, instead of foloowing their consciences.
|

You ignore the millions of Soviet Citizens who were shot and butcherd
durring the 70 years preceding the colapse of the Soviet Union.  If a
gun-less revolution is so possible, why didn't it happen earlier?  Do
you think the people hated Stalin less?  Where was the conscience of
the army then?  (Lenin knew he couldn't allow the people to have guns.)

It was the army which eventually put down the coup.  And yes, they had
guns.


--David C. Adams   dadams@cray.com
___________________________________________________________________
       member--Minnesotans for Global Warming.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: paull@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (Robert Paull)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Suicides, injuries, and Vigilantees.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 14:48:18 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories Palo Alto,CA

sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
: In article <1992Aug14.202216.22911@ttinews.tti.com> 
: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:
: >
: >(BTW, under California law, if anyone gets hold of one of your guns and
: >injures or kills themselves or someone else, _you_ get to spend three
: >years in jail for "improper storage of a firearm", a felony.  As I write,
: >at least one person is in jail because his grandson accidentally shot
: >himself on New Year's.  What effect, if any, this law will have on in-home
: >gun accidents remains to be seen).
: 
: So if a burglar breaks into your home while you're at work, cracks
: your safe, steals your guns, and blows away a few policemen, _you_
: go to jail?  Ridiculous!  Sounds like a prime candidate for JURY
: NULLIFICATION.  Which states have a FIJA?


   Whoa, let's come back to earth here. The CA.law is supposed to hold
the owner of a firearm responsible if a child finds a gun and harms 
themselvesor someone else.  I think there are 2 cases pending right now
in CA. Neither case has been decided and as far as I know the trials for
either case haven't started. In fact just two or three weeks ago another
adolecent found a gun in his house and 'the gun accidentally went off' and
he shot himself in the face. (Quoted because that's what the news reports
said. Who knows, it could have been a suicide attempt.)

RP


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: urbin@interlan.Interlan.COM (Mark Urbin)
Subject: Demo Gun Control fails to protect honest citizens
Organization: Racal InterLan, Inc., Boxborough, MA (1-800-LAN-TALK)
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 13:54:52 GMT



In article <1992Aug07.162932.13013@ecst.csuchico.edu> jimmay@csuchico.edu (Jim May) writes:
>The reason gun bans in cities don't work is simply because it's not 
>nationwide.  We have open borders within the country so that city bans are 
>thwarted by neighboring jurisdictions that value human life less.
    Then please explain why the `murder by firearm' rate per capita is not
higher in Maryland or Virgina than it is in Washington D.C.?
  If it is so much easier to get a gun there, why don't the crimes happen
there instead of Washington D.C.?


-- 
Mark Urbin  Racal-Datacom   Boxborough, MA  These opinions are mine.
"Banning guns makes for great theater but it does nothing to address the 
real problem of criminals and criminal behavior,"
                            -- New Jersey State Assemblyman Frank LoBiondo
From: larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: 21 Aug 92 20:33:32 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:

>In article <viking.714276649@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu
>(Dan Sorenson) writes:

[....]

>>	They are not, agreed, and thus my reasoning that pulling a gun
>>at a traffic stop is wrong.  However, in the no-knock mentioned above,
>>or when the cop is arresting a murderer or the like, I feel prudence
>>makes a ready weapon mandatory.

>But not pointing it at an unarmed woman.

I didn't want to get involved in this because I think 1) this was supposed
to be a media event, 2) no-knock or assault raids are blatently illegal, 3)
Aston made a big mistake.  However, in a situation like this, you cannot
assume anyone is unarmed.  More than one person has gotten him/herself
killed making that kind of assumption.

--
Larry                                   |   Thunder makes all the noise;
                                        |   lightning gets the job done.
larryd@milton.washington.edu
I have my opinion; the university has its own.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals