HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bb063@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher J. Crobaugh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: "The NAZI Roots of Gun Control"
Date: 28 Jan 1993 11:46:22 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


A poster here this morning wondered what the genesis of federal
gun law in the United States was; I pointed out that he should
procure a copy of "The NAZI Roots of Gun Control," written and
published by the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin (414-769-0760). Their book shows conclusively
that US law reads virtually word for word (discounting differences
resulting from US federalism) as does the 1938 German law.
This book is an eye opener; it's also being disavowed by the senion
senior NRA management, because it runs the gun-controllers clean
out of "wiggle room." Once the facts of the book are on the table,
all arguments for gun control relating to "crime" become moot.
The POLITICAL motivation for gun control becomes the only reasonable
explanation. Good book; all activists should have at least one
copy.
-- 
bb063@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu  Chris Crobaugh - (216) 327-6655 (V)
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little 
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: A well-armed (and well-fed) society
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: talk
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:24:12 GMT

In article <NELSON.93Jan21232831@cheetah.clarkson.edu> nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes:
>We've often heard the assertion ``A well-armed society is a polite society.''
>
>Well, I would add the clause ``A well-armed AND WELL-FED society ...'', after
>viewing what the wide distribution of guns has done to Somalia.

The well-armed are the well-fed in Somalia.  Warlords and their
affiliates (or govt) always are both armed and fed and we're not going
to change that with any law.  The not-fed are the not-armed in
Somalia.

Of course, Nelson thinks that a war (which is what was going on in
Somalia) is a result of individuals defending themselves.  You'd think
a "humble quaker" would know the difference between individuals
wanting to be left alone and organized groups of thugs (govts) trying
to herd said individuals.

-andy
--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Senator Mitchell's Record (Was: Clinton bans imports of guns&ammo already)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<urbin.159.727990648@interlan.interlan.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:48:47 GMT

In article <urbin.159.727990648@interlan.interlan.com> urbin@interlan.interlan.com (Mark Urbin) writes:

<       Thanks, I'm the one who asked for it.  Next question:  What is George 
<   Mitchell's NRA/GOA rating?  

	Well, I don't have that rating to hand, but I do have 
	his voting record on key RKBA votes, courtesy of Neal
	Knox's "Firearms Coalition".

*******	1985-86 McClure-Volkmer act co-sponsor: no

	Key votes on Mc-V, July 9, 1985:  yes
	
	(These are votes on attempts to gut Mc-V even more than
	 it was: Mitchell stood by firearms owners.)

	However, Senator Mitchell has "grown"....

*******	In May-June of 1990, he voted badly on S.1970, the so-
	called "crime bill".

	Metzenbaum amendment, allowing a semi-auto rifle ban: yes

	Hatch amendment, to strike the DeConcini "semi-auto
	assault rifle" ban from S.1970:			    : no
	
	Gramm amendment, to strike the DeConcini ban from 
	S.1970:						    : no

*******	In June of 1991, Mitchell voted badly during the
	votes on S-1241.

	NRA-backed Stevens amendment to substitute "instant check"
	on handgun purchasers over waiting period:	     : no

	Dole-Metzenbaum "compromise"			     : no

	"Cloture" vote to break gunowners filibuster:	     : voted 
							       to end
							       debate

	Final passage of S-1241, including DeConcini ban:    : FOR
							       S-1241

****** July 27, 1992, Mitchell voted AGAINST repealing the
       Washington, DC liability law.


****** October 2, 1992, Mitchell voted to end the filibuster
       against the House approved 1991-92 "compromise" bill,
       which included semi-auto bans and the worst version
       of the Brady bill.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


	I do not know how GOA or NRA rate Senator Mitchell,
	but I would give him a "D" at best and probably
	an "F".
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Text: New Brady Bill
Date: 26 Jan 1993 20:58:17 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

Stephen D. Grant writes:

>>            "(II) the transferor has received notice from the chief 
>>        law enforcement officer that the officer has no information 
>>        indicating that receipt or possession of the handgun by the 
>>        transferee would violate Federal, State, or local law; 

>     This is the same requirement almost word for word as it appears on
 >    Form 4 (for class III transfers). Here in Lexington Ky, the Chief
  >   simply refuses to sign. The BATF blesses this position.
   >  So, looks like now the Chief will be able to "not sign" for
    > handguns as well. Oh well, maybe the next crazy will open up at the
 
It sounds like that if there is no law from preventing a citizen from owning
an item, the refusal of the Chief to sign-- to do his job--- sounds like it
could be the basis of a lawsuit.  Get a few people to be refused, and it could
be a class action.  I don't know what grounds- denial of civil rights?  dereliction
of duty?  I'm sure a lawyer could be creative.

More chilling... supposing someone had legally applied, and been stonewalled.  Later,
the applicant was unfortunately murdered by an intruder.  The surviving family
contends that the victim could have defended himself, but had been deliberately
denied his right to do so... wrongful death suit against the police dept.?

	Dave
From: toby@stein.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Correction of letter to U.S. News
Date: 22 Jan 1993 15:59:47 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

Thanks to all who pointed out that fingerprinting is not
a requirement for FFL application.  My letter has been
corrected.

Toby Bradshaw
Department of Biochemistry and College of Forest Resources
University of Washington, Seattle
toby@u.washington.edu

"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the prosperity of
a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall
not be infringed."  Do you think that banning legal possession of
easily-concealed novels will stop criminals from reading?





Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: A well-armed (and well-fed) society
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Distribution: talk
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:23:30 GMT

In article <NELSON.93Jan21232831@cheetah.clarkson.edu>, nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes:
|> We've often heard the assertion ``A well-armed society is a polite society.''
|> 
|> Well, I would add the clause ``A well-armed AND WELL-FED society ...'', after
|> viewing what the wide distribution of guns has done to Somalia.
|> 
|> --
|> --russ <nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> Businesses persuade; Governments force.

Hey Russ, have you been away for a while or something? There is no
"wide distribution of guns" in Somalia so it can't have caused anything.
Let's state it simply only the Warlords (ex-generals) and the invading
force (US military) had/have experienced a wide distribution of arms.
The starving masses were unarmed.

The problems in Somalia relate to the behaviour of those generals
not the existance of guns.

				mike
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: "Sniper" with Tom Berenger
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 04:16:53 GMT

In article <1jq0v8INNk8v@cae.cad.gatech.edu> vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox) writes:
>In <1993Jan22.125735.11279@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbvox1.att.com writes:
>>I was watching the Military Industrial Complex channel (A&E) last night
>
>Hmmm. I had always thought of the Discovery Channel having that honorable
>title. Seems like any time I flip onto Discovery, there's Wings, or FirePower,
>or Carriers, or one of those other shows I lump under the generic title
>	"Blowing shit up".
>
>Guess I don't watch enough A&E.

Guess I didn't have enough sleep before I wrote that note!
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,fido.rtkba
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Radio News Inaccuracies
Date: 28 Jan 93 14:35:21 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


News Story this morning on WRQX-FM (107.3) in Washington:

They have a fingerprint of the nut who shot people outside the CIAon
Monday, found on a shell casing.

Weapon was IDed as an AK-47.

Reported claimed that this was the 'weapon of choice' for criminals,
used in '10% of all crimes, according to federal statistics.'

I've been trying to call in all morning to ask 'which federal
statistics?'

Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-A  LPVa 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
----------------------------------------------------------------
"...I am opposed to all attempts to license or restrict the arming of
individuals...I consider such laws a violation of civil liberty, 
subversive of democratic political institutions, and self-defeating
in their purpose."
        - 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: pettengi@ial3.jsc.nasa.gov (James B. Pettengill)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Text: New Brady Bill
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:58:02 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Science Company
X-Xxdate: Wed, 27 Jan 93 16:42:08 GMT
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12

What exactly does the following paragraph mean?
Do you have to wait 10 days with a note from the Chief of Police 
that you indeed need a handgun to protect yourself

In article <1k3abtINNk8j@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Christopher J. Crobaugh,
bb063@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:
>
>        "(B) the transferee has presented to the transferor a 
>    written statement, issued by the chief law enforcement officer 
>    of the place of residence of the transferee during the 10-day 
>    period ending on the date of the most recent proposal of such 
>    transfer by the transferee, which states that the transferee 
>    requires access to a handgun because of a threat to the life of 
>    the transferee or of any member of the household of the 
>    transferee; 
>

The following is what has to be presented when purchasing a handgun:
Will a police background check determine if B(iii),(v),(vi) has been
violated?

>    "(3) The statement referred to in paragraph (1)(A)(i)(I) shall 
>contain only-- 
>        "(A) the name, address, and date of birth appearing on a 
>    valid identification document (as defined in section 1028(d)(1)) 
>    of the transferee containing a photograph of the transferee and 
>    a description of the identification used; 
>
>        "(B) a statement that the transferee-- 
>            "(i) is not under indictment for, and has not been 
>        convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by 
>        imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; 
>            "(ii) is not a fugitive from justice; 
>            "(iii) is not an unlawful user of or addicted to any 
>        controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the 
>        Controlled Substances Act); 
>            "(iv) has not been adjudicated as a mental defective or 
>        been committed to a mental institution; 
>            "(v) is not an alien who is illegally or unlawfully in 
>        the United States; 
>            "(vi) has not been discharged from the Armed Forces 
>        under dishonorable conditions; and 
>            "(vii) is not a person who, having been a citizen of 
>        the United States, has renounced such citizenship; 
>
>        "(C) the date the statement is made; and 
>
>        "(D) notice that the transferee intends to obtain a handgun 
>    from the transferor. 
>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: The Cat Factory
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:31:00 GMT

In article <n8h364m@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
}Andy Freeman writes:
}
}[stuff deleted]
}>I'm not known as a fan of the NRA; I get hate-mail from people who
}>think that I criticize it too much.  (I'm not even a member.)
}>However, the NRA does get some things right, and this is one of them.
}>
}>If you can't safely handle a gun without a safety, you can't safely
}>handle it with one.  There are two possibilities - the gun isn't safe
}>or you aren't.
}
}I'd be sending kudos to the NRA if this were the only message that
}comes from their words, since it says nothing about the "don't bother
}with safties" garbage.  However, this isn't what the NRA is saying,
}despite your biased interpretation as someone already familiar with
}safe gun handling (i.e., someone that knows enough to use a safety if
}it's there).  They're saying to not bother learning to use safeties at
}all, in the literal interpetation of their words (as paraphrased by
}C.D. Tavares).  ...

C.D. Tavares is wrong.  Nowhere, in any of the NRA lesson plans, does it
say to ignore safeties.  If some NRA instructor said anything like that in
a class he was expressing his own opinion, not NRA policy.  IMHO, it's a
damn stupid opinion.  If anyone of his students gets hurt because of it
and sues him the NRA will probably throw him to the wolves, and rightly
so.

The NRA classes stress safe gun handling and warn not to _rely_ on
safeties.  Nowhere do they say not to _use_ them.  That's the important
distinction that seems to have been missed in this discussion.  One should
_always_ use whatever safety options are available, but _never_ rely on
mechanical safeties as a substitute for proper gun handling procedure.

Note that every firearm user's manual I've ever read has taken the same
attitude.  They all stress safe gun handling and warn against reliance on
mechanical safeties.

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                "If you can't stand solitude,
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483  perhaps others find you boring
Santa Monica, CA  90405                        as well."  -- Mark Twain
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: Re: Fort Collins Gun Ban!!  Jan. 19
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:06:20 GMT

>So now I have two questions:
>
>1)  Should strictly local issues regarding firearms stay local though local
>distribution and kept out of rec.guns and talk.politics.guns?
>
>2)  Were there folks out there who would like this kind of information who
>did not receive it from me personally or through the Colorado Shooters
>Information mailing list?

IMHO local stuff should generally be fair game here (t.p.g) Loss of
freedom anywhere effects us all if for no other reason than that there
is one less place to run.

				mike
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: E N O U G H    A L R E A D Y ! ! !
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:26:53 GMT

I'm getting so much gun-related email from cross-postings that I'm now
doing something I would not have believed possible last year: 

I'm deleting without reading ALL email after selectively reading
those messages the headers of which suggest that they are not
gun-related.

Believe me, I'm real right-wing, but I just don't have time to wade
through all this stuff (I've got a job now and have to work for a
living).

Thanks for listening.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
You too can work on OS/2 in Sunny Boca Raton, Florida!
Send your resume to:

	Mr. Roly Ramirez, Technical Recruiter
	AGS Information Services, Inc.
	777 Yamato Road, Suite 450
	Boca Raton, FL 33431
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: Clinton bans imports of guns&ammo already
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 19:00:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: N/I

In article <urbin.159.727990648@interlan.interlan.com> urbin@interlan.interlan.com (Mark Urbin) writes:
[ ... ]
>    Thanks, I'm the one who asked for it.  Next question:  What is George 
>Mitchell's NRA/GOA rating?  

From Neal Knox's "Key Congressional Votes 1985-1992":

        George Mitchell   R R R R X X X X X X X X

-- where "R" means pro-gun vote (i.e., "right"), "X" is "wrong".
(No, I'm too busy to type in the key.)  He turned anti-gun in 1990.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: smpod@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan)
Subject: Re: 43 Times more likely?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: who knows
Date: 21 Jan 1993 17:09 EDT  

 db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes...
>kkirksey@world.std.com (Ken B Kirksey) writes:
>>I picked up the local paper (Charlotte Observer) today and found a column
>>entitled "Women and Guns" by Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe.  In it,
>>she states:
>> 
>>    "I understand the impulse to pick the sort of personal safety sold with
>>    a matching holster.  But that sense of security is false.  Guns in the 
>>    home are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than
>>    an intruder.  They raise the level of violence, not safety."
>>    
>Yes, I quite agree. Good to see a few different opinions in this group.
>It has been boring of late. I am not sure where the figure of 43 comes
>from, but it stands to reason, possession of guns could not possibly
>reduce violence; never has, never will,

Yes, the violence may not be reduced but redistributed,...towards the criminal.
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Text: New Brady Bill
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:11:46 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan27.165802.3545@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, pettengi@ial3.jsc.nasa.gov (James B. Pettengill) writes:
> What exactly does the following paragraph mean?
> Do you have to wait 10 days with a note from the Chief of Police 
> that you indeed need a handgun to protect yourself

> >        "(B) the transferee has presented to the transferor a 
> >    written statement, issued by the chief law enforcement officer 
> >    of the place of residence of the transferee during the 10-day 
> >    period ending on the date of the most recent proposal of such 
> >    transfer by the transferee, which states that the transferee 
> >    requires access to a handgun because of a threat to the life of 
> >    the transferee or of any member of the household of the 
> >    transferee; 

No.  It means: if you go into a gun dealer with a letter written in the
past ten days by the chief, which says that your life is in danger and 
the dealer should sell you a gun immediately, the dealer can sell you
a gun without having to make you wait seven days.
-- 

cdt@rocket.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:27132 misc.legal:23285
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,misc.legal
Subject: Pistol Permit in Cambridge, Part II
Date: 25 Jan 93 22:56:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1993Jan25.175618.19787
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

Please advise me on the process of appealing a denial of the above, for
the (spurious) reason of failure to provide requested documentation.

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
From: ron@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ron Miller)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:18:51 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Fort Collins Gun Ban!!  Jan. 19
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

Aftermath of the Ft. Collins City Council Meeting indicated another
item of interest.

================== PUBLIC DEBATE =================

WHAT: League of Women Voters is sponsoring a moderated forum on a
      program called "CROSS CURRENTS"  CC is an hour-long program
      every 3rd Thursday and is aired on Columbine Cablevision 
      Channel 27 and KCSU radio (FM).

TOPIC: GUN CONTROL

GUESTS:

      Senator Regis Groff- Groff has 3 gun control bills before present
                           legislature and is a repeat offender :-)

      Mr Larry Abramson- I was told via phonecon that he is from "the DA's
                         office"  (backs GC)

      Mr. Ken Geissen - Ft. Collins resident representing the NRA position.

      Mr Gil Angelati- NRA State Director (?)


FORMAT: Moderator offers each guest the opportunity to address his position
        in questions presented at the opening. (i.e. "opening statements")

        Audience participation is DESIRED.

        Guests will answer questions posed from the audience.( These are 
        supposed to be questions rather than opposing views. Just think 
        of yourself as asking questions the way Dan Rather would......)

        BE POLITE!

WHERE: Ft. Collins City Council Chambers, 300 LaPorte Ave. Ft. Collins.

WHEN:   THURSDAY, JANUARY 28, 7 PM.

      Audience should arrive well before 6:45PM in order to get settled 
      before the program begins at 7PM.

      The program lasts 1 hour.

REBROADCAST: Channel 27 will replay this event every Thursday and Friday
             evening until a new show is run.
=======================================================================

Ron Miller
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Pistol Permit in Cambridge, Part II
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:51:48 GMT
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma

In article <1993Jan25.175618.19787@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>Please advise me on the process of appealing a denial of the above, for
>the (spurious) reason of failure to provide requested documentation.
>
>cordially,

You file an appeal in district court (filing fee about $60). There
is some sort of deadline (30 days, I think) after the denial in
which to file (otherwise, you have to apply to get another denial
to reset the clock).

You chances aren`t that great without an attorney.  Karen MacNutt 
comes to mind (617 482-9668) if you want someone experienced in these 
matters who is 100% pro gun-rights.

What documentation is it that you have allegedly failed to provide?
It might be easier getting the documentation than fighting it
in court.

                                        rob b.
                                        rboudrie@chpc.org


>mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
>"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:27019 talk.politics.misc:69049
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: On the eve of Bill's (not so) Excellent Adventure
Date: 21 Jan 93 22:33:26 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <-m_s3qp@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>As for the change of us stopping government corruption today vs yesterday,
>a dead corrupt politician is as dead today as he was yesterday.  Consider
>the upheval after kennedy.  It is always a toss of the dice where 
>things will point afterward but I'm about ready to take a chance.

Yeah, good thing we got that evil John Kennedy out of the way.

What?  He was an NRA member?  Ooops...

    don