HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yee@mipg.upenn.edu (Conway Yee)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: A thought about fully automatic weapons...
Date: 22 Dec 92 21:45:10 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

>No one says full auto weapons are not useful.  Most people have been
>saying that for a civilian, fully automatic fire is not generally
>tactically practical for self-defense.

A perfectly reasonable explanation.  I'll buy that.

>No, that's an apples and oranges comparison.  A closer analogy is that
>CBs are limited to .22lr, while hams can go from there all the way up
>to .50cal BMG.  Your comparison was comparing power to mode, it would
>make as much sense as saying that CBs are only limited to 4 watts
>while hams can transmit packet.  No logic.

Here, I disagree.  The analogy was not in the relative power outputs 
allowed by CB vs. ham.  The analogy was that people in rec.radio.cb
argue to justify why a 4 watt limitation is very reasonable; to go
past it is sacriligious (sp) while in rec.radio.amateur.misc, hams
regularly use higher power without dire consequences.

I am just saying that it is possible (although not likely given some
of the feedback by those who have military experience) that the same
phenomenon is happening in t.p.g.  Namely, becauase NFA '34 is in effect,
we are arguing why such restrictions are reasonable.  By doing so, the
government has already restricted our rights.  We are no longer arguing
why the government unjustifiably restricted our rights but rather 
arguing why such restrictions are reasonable.

As an example, back in the 18th century, gentlemen considered it their
right to defend their honor by fighting a duel.  This duel required the
consent of both parties.  The rules were agreed to by both parties
(although there were prevailing customs).  The government was not
involved at all.  Nobody not a party to the disagreement was hurt; all
were consenting adults.  Today, duels are illegal.  We now defend these
governmental restrictions as reasonable under the concept of preventing
murder.  I disagree.  If all parties involved are consenting, I have 
absolutely no right to interfere, it is none of my business that
two (or more guys) are trying to kill each other.

-- 
411 Blockley Hall      |                    Conway Yee, N2JWQ
418 Service Drive      | yee@ming.mipg.upenn.edu    (preferred)
Philadelphia, PA 19104 | cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (forwarded to above)
(215) 662-6780         |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 01:01:57 GMT

In article <9301021305.12@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
> ...
>Most of the gunshots that are fired in Boston are crack dealers
>shooting at other crack dealers.

  Clearly we need a law prohibiting crack dealing in Boston.  That
would eliminate "most of the gunshots that are fired in Boston".
Alternatively a law prohibiting crack dealers from shooting at
or hitting anyone else other than crack dealers would eliminate
most of the unjustified carnage.

  Why screw around passing laws about guns?  Just go right for
the crucial area you have identified and regulate crack dealers!
>
>>We happen to know that criminals don't acquire guns at gun stores.
>>(It's easy enough to do the relevant research.)  Therefore, controls
>>on stores are, at best, like looking for your keys under a street
>>light when you know that you lost them somewhere else.  Sure the light
>>is good there, but you're wasting your time.
>>
>>We can't win a gun war any more than we can win a drug war.  How many
>>people should we jail to satisfy Kelly's bigotry?  (BTW - He's also
>>misstated the way MA's gun laws work for honest law-abiding people.)
>
>Apparently, the appeal process has changed over the last decade.  It's
>been a long time since anyone I know had to go through it.
>
>You seem to imply that if EVERYONE had a gun, there would be no crime
>and no shots fired.

  I just can't see where he implies this.
>
>And, of course, untrained idiots who bought a gun at K-Mart would never
>hurt themselves or anyone else by mistake.

  Does this mean that you are in favor of training?  Welcome to the
crowd!  I think that firearms safety training should be a mandatory
course in high school.  Of course even that wouldn't guarantee that
there never would be a "mistake" or accident - but there are very
few guarantees in life.
>
>And your belief that no one legally buys a gun and then does something
>illegal with it is ridiculous.  Read a newspaper.

  In my personal experience newspapers badly mislead their readers
about the sources of guns.  The Attorney General of the U.S. reported
to the Congress that the vast majority of guns used by criminals not are
obtained through legal retail purchase.  (It was either 84% or 86% - 
I forget which.)

  If your criterion is that we should ban or strictly regulate all
products which have *ever* been used by any one person to do
"something illegal" - then there is a long list that you're going
to have to work on.

--henry schaffer
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: The War On Drugs and the National Guard
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:12:31 GMT

In article <DLB.92Dec29120949@fanny.wash.inmet.com> dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes:
>In article <ARCHER.544.725645101@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu
>(T. Archer) writes:
>
>   This releases the Guardsman from legal obligations and puts the
>   onus of lawbreaking on his CO.  That way, line grunts can follow
>   thier orders without worrying about getting sued.  Whether or not
>   the CO can give these orders outside of a declaration of Martial
>   Law is something I do not know about.  And I have some serious
>   reservations about the constitutionality of marital law as well.
>
>Seems to me that even this is a little problematic.  The Nuremburg
>trials, as well as other war crimes trials, pretty clearly establish
>that a soldier cannot plead ``orders'' when violating the human rights
>of others.  Should the same not apply here?

Not exactly.  You are addressing a moral issue of human rights.  I am, in my 
own naive way, trying to address a legal issue dealing with civil 
liberties.  According to the letter of the law of the land, the grunt on the 
end is freed of onus, and can't be sued by the victim.  That suit, or any 
charges, are properly placed on the person who made the decision:  the CO.  
On a moral level, I am a big fan of holding ALL individuals responsible for 
thier actions.  If the grunt felt that the search & seizure to be morally 
wrong, he should refuse to follow the order.  But I live in reality, and 
real morality is relative to personal cost.  The average grunt will obey 
orders to violate my civil liberties and tell me to take it up with his CO.  
Hell, "tell it to the judge" is standard for civilian cops today.  On the 
other hand, I like to think that the average soldier would refuse to shoot 
me out of hand.  

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Oh No!  NSW homicides again
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:16:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.235939.20459@mtu.edu>, cescript@mtu.edu
(Charles Scripter) writes:

> In article <LAMBERT.92Dec22033035@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>,
> lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
> [...]
> 
> Not true, *each* SD(mean) has 3 sigma, and all that tells you is that
                   ^^^^^^^^

Oops.  I meant to say "Not true, *each* mean has 3 sigma, and ..."

-- 
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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 18:13:19 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <1992Dec31.194027.1838@cbnewse.cb.att.com> random@cbnewse.cb.att.com (David L. Pope) writes:
>[Text regarding carry permits deleted.]
>
>>>Then why are we threatening other people with jail?
>
>> The police would like to know who has guns.
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>And it is our duty to restrict that knowledge.

Why is that?

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Here's the problem
Date: 22 Dec 1992 10:29:13 -0600
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com

In article <jrh.2b36d4a7-e@mustang.dell.com> jrh@mustang.dell.com (Randy Howard) writes:
>This brings to mind (for no obvious reason) a discussion I had a few nights
>ago with an obvious -- shall I say it?  Ok.. the L-word... -- liberal who
>was trying to justify legalizing drugs to make the problem go away.  Somehow, 
>I still don't understand the exact case he made, he used the pro-gun reasoning
>to justify his position.  The basics were the belief that if you outlaw guns,
>only outlaws have guns, and the same thing applies to cocaine and other
>illegal drugs.  I was stunned, but after seeing Clinton elected, this was 
>by far easier to grasp, I had been immunized to such obvious stupidity.
>
>My response was simple..  "I see no Right to Bear Drugs in the Bill of Rights,
>so I don't think the people can claim they have any SPECIFIC right to drugs.

This is the kind of reasoning that leads to erosion of our rights.
"If the consitution doesn't exclicitly protect the right then the
government is free to infringe upon it".  My reasoning is just the
opposite - "If the constitution does not grant the government the
power then they don't have it".

The constitution doesn't say anything about drugs so the federal
government has no power to make them illegal.  Remember prohibition.
(I don't but I've read about it:).  They realized they had no
power to prohibit alcohol so they passed a constitutional amendment
to outlaw it.  This is a least the correct procedure.

Besides, the War on Drugs is being used to restrict quite a number
of rights.  Not least of which is the RKBA.  We still have it but
for how long.  

>the precedents for drug legalization.  The only thing that stuck me funny is,
>if this is really a common argument that they use (the firearm reference),
>one could assume that a lot of drug dealers are anti-HCI.  Perhaps we can get
>them to join the NRA with the money they make off their clients. :)

I don't know for sure but I would thing the drug dealers could care
less if guns are legal.  They will get theirs anyway.  I would also
assume that they like drugs being ILLEGAL - it increases their profits.
It also increases risk but if drugs were legal they would probably be
out of business.
-- 
-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Posting Email Without Permission Is Unacceptable (Was: The Ninth Not Dead Yet)
Date: 29 Dec 1992 23:17:33 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <ATAYLOR.92Dec27173334@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

> <   Ah, I remember the discussion now.  It was not here -- it was in e-mail.
> <   Since none of the e-mail was particularly personal, I hope you have no
> <   objection to me excerpting some of it.

> 	Yes, I do most strongly object, on the grounds that you did
> 	not ask prior to posting it.
> 
> 	Please cancel the posting immediately. 

Done, for reasons of etiquette and not legality.

> 	I shall discuss the issue of the 9th in a separate posting.

Discuss it with yourself.  I'm not going to get into a pissing contest 
with you where you can selectively quote your own e-mail, but I can't.

> 	I normally would take it to email, but Tavares obviously
> 	would just post any email I send to him anyway, so....

Poor beleaguered Nosy.  Take a pill, and get your perspective back.
-- 

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...
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Bad cops - a perfect example
Date: 26 Dec 92 13:10:58 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <75837@apple.apple.COM> earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace) writes:

> Stephen D. Grant:
>> Earl Wallace:

>>> Could this happen?

No.

>>>   over 10 cops a day are killed in the US every day [...]

>> Let's see, that would be over 3,560 police killed each year [...]
                                 ^^^^^[actually 3652.522]
>> Do you have a source for this claim?

> It's just a possible scenario.

No it's not -- it's a _CONTRIVED_ scenario.

> There is nothing I have to prove because I made it up.

Yes there is.  You have to prove (or at least reasonably demonstrate)
that current trends are such that the scenario you envision may one
day potentially materialize.  Otherwise, your musings aren't really
much more than intellectual masturbation.

> Can it happen?  Sure.

Hah!  Very doubtful.  Many more cops would be quitting than getting
shot long before the fatality rate reached your supposed figures.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
From: earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Lawrence Mass.
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:14:02 GMT
Organization: R & R (Rant and Rave)

In article <105573@bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
  >...
  >Consider what the Police in Lawrence Mass are doing now:
  >
  >In a for 4 block area known for drug dealing and prostitution
  >they have "sealed off" the area. Residents are given "passes".
  >There are checkpoints where the police will ask to your
  >license and registartion, they give you a card explaining why
  >you were stopped and they record your licence plate number.
  >The first effect is on Suburbanites who come into the 
  >city to buy drugs or sex. Not activities you want veiwed
  >in the harsh light of day. The second is that the high visibilty
  >of the police has also reduced the number of people loitering
  >(of which might be drug dealers and prostitutes).
  >It seems to be working. Streets where children dared not play
  >or old people dare not venture are now safe.
  >...

In the above case where the police secure an area of the city, the crooks
just move on to other areas.  We have to stop people from becoming criminals
in the first place, that's a much better solution.  If we can't prevent
them from a life of crime, let's get rid of them.  Harsh?  Maybe, but when
someone walks up to your car, pulls a knife/gun/flashlight and attempts
to kill you, that's pretty darn harsh too.  

I don't want a society of "security-cells" where people are safe and secure
within their cell, but risk their lives outside it.  Might as well lock
yourself in your house and never come out.  That's no life.  Might as well
put a bullet in your head and check out.  No, I'm afraid we have to solve
the problem for all of society and not just for a select few.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Time-Warner
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:41:32 GMT

In article <lk48gfINN5it@news.bbn.com> gonzalez@BBN.COM (Jim Gonzalez) writes:
>I don't think Time-Warner has changed its tune, as some here have suggested.
>It's been reported on the internet mailing last that the latest Batman, 
>produced by Time-Warner's DC comics, has a story including Virginia gun
>runners and "assault weapons".  It was today reported that the Virginia 
>governor is distributing it to legislators, in support of his latest 
>gun control proposals.

That's a hoot.  Various virtuous characters in that comic claim that
gun control laws don't work.  (The "we're doing this as a benefit"
page says that the proceeds are going to some gun control fund.)

Even the Batman gets caught lying in that comic.  They've never
managed to pull off self-righteous very well.

Besides, a recommendation from Batman is about like a recommendation
from Hinkley.  How much weight should we give to the word of a
certified loon?

-andy
--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 3 Jan 93 22:46:05 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
> 
> >In Arizona, I believe, there is now a move to restrict the current 
> >laws that allow children to carry concealed weapons, as many 
> >parents are concerned that it has become fashionable for junior 
> >high students to carry concealed weapons.
> 
> 	Nonsense.  In AZ it illegal for _adults_ to carry concealed
> weapons.   Either you got the state wrong or the whole story is 
> simply wrong.   

unfortunately, it is -not- nonsense. i just got back from vacation in
Mesa & it's was one of the top stories in the Pheonix area newspapers.

several cities around Pheonix have enacted laws that require people
under 18 to have a document with serial numbers, etc. signed by parents
and notarized. i believe this was upheld at the state level.

another measure, allowing cities to restrict carry at "events" was 
clarified. some of them were claiming the entire weekend was an 
"event" because of the number of people who flock to certain sections
of town for entertainment. that idea got tossed. when i went to the
Tempe block party there -was- a notice at the entrance "No Weapons".
(apparently if you've got port-a-potties it's organized enough to
be considered an "event".)

the question is, will the law help with the problems the valley has
been having with drive by shootings? naah. i doubt your average gangsta'
is going to get permission from his mommy to carry his 9. violence is
already illegal. if current laws and enforcement are insufficient a
few more useless pieces of legislation won't help much. unfortunately,
these laws are worse than useless because they'll probably end up
entrapping the same law abiding citizens they were supposed to protect.

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,` "True love is better than anything, except cough drops."            `,`
`,`                     - The Princess Bride (book), by William Goldman `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Intentions?
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:37:37 GMT

lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:

>Another media blitz, initiated by Josh Sugarman, is to increase regulation
>on gun dealers.  By reducing the number of dealers [e.g., by requiring
>gun dealer applicants to obtain local law enforcement approval on the
>application form], competition is lessened, prices go up and the demand
>for guns goes down.

	There is a whole association for "stocking" FFL holders dedicated
to just this very goal.   I don't remember the name.  In my opinion, 
people who try to get government to muscle out their competition for
them are crawley little worms.

Jim Del Vecchio
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Shooting License
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 00:08:40 GMT

<In article <1992Dec22.213228.28491@hydra.acs.ttu.edu> mcgoy@unicorn.acs.ttu.edu (David McGaughey) writes:
 <  I think that it is time that the states require a shooting license.
 
	Ok, what problem are you trying to solve with this
	license?

<  The following are some possible characteristics of such a license:

<   1.  It would NOT be required to purchase or own a gun.

	Not at first, but after a year or two it most 
	certainly would.

<  2.  It WOULD be required to use a gun.

	Anywhere? Would I have to have this license to shoot
	a .22 on my own property?
	Why? 
	What purpose is served?

<  3.  Obtaining this license would be similar to obtaining a driver's
<       license.
	
	Well, that's good; I would be able to take my gun
	and use it anywhere in the 50 States and Washington
	DC, a great improvment over the current situation.

<  4.  State training would be offered, as it is for driving a car.

	Uh huh. And it would probably cost just the same, right?
	We wouldn't see, say, one class offered every 2 years
	for 25 people...would we?

<   5.  Insurance would be required, as it is for driving a car.

	Why? To what end?

<   Most states already require the safest gun users to have a license for
<   the use of a gun in the safest of uses:  hunting with the hunter safety
<   card.  

	No, they require a license to hunt game owned by the State.
	The tool used to hunt isn't relevant to hunter safety;
	bowhunters have to take the course as well as firearms
	hunters, for example.

<Let's educate the idiots who use guns unsafely.

	This looks like a proposal to disarm the law abiding,
	to me.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Date: Friday, 25 Dec 1992 15:53:24 EST
From: <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Gungrabber BS (WAS: Re: Kids and Guns
 <1992Dec18.182743.9713@bluemoon.use.com>

In article <1992Dec18.182743.9713@bluemoon.use.com>, grant@bluemoon.use.com
(Grant DeLorean) says:
>
>kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:
>
>>I was just listening to the news and the newsbabe said that a kid
>>gets killed by a gun every 3 hours.  I presume that she means in the
>>US, since the info came from a US gungrabber group.
>
>>That's 2,920 kids per year.  Anybody got any stats on this?  I don't
>>believe it.
>
> If you include everyone up to and including 24 years old as "kids"
>(they call them children, not kids...) then it isn't too far off.
>That includes gangs killing each other, too.

If the gungrabbers who published the figures are behaving as
fast and loose with the truth as they usually do, the figures also
include suicides.

W. K. Gorman
NRA Life
NRA Golden Eagle


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Intentions?
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 03:50:09 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.001556.1234@newsgate.sps.mot.com>
rrbk50@email.sps.mot.com (Rick Cottle) writes:

>I've heard that Hillary's old man will attack the gun 'problem' by
>trying to outlaw many kinds of ammunition, thus by passing the
>current strategies like the Brady Bill, etc.  Supposedly this
>will be easier to do than outright banning firearms.

         Something along the lines of, if you can't rid yourself of
the printing press, prohibit the ink.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu