HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Street Violence and Media
Keywords: guns violence TV media ban
Date: 3 Sep 92 07:41:57 GMT
Organization: Totally Unorganized


I was sitting here watching the boob tube, and this cop show comes on,
with the stuff they show portraying the main characters going by, and
I just noticed that every other scene (each 1 - 2 seconds long) shows
the stars in a menacing pose with a gun.  The alternating scenes shows
them doing some bust, or flashing a badge, etc.  The overall impression
is glorifying guns and power, suggesting that without one one cannot
have the other.  And the cool, worldly 'with it' person conspicously
packs a weapon, and is willing to flash it at the least provocation.
That is, you gotta be 'bad' to be 'cool'.

No wonder young and impressionable people misuse guns - they get a
nonstop barrage of stuff telling them that if you aint got the power,
you aint nothing, and without a gun you aint got the power.  Nothing
even REMOTELY suggestive of the need for a modicum of training, the
responsibility or the real world use of guns.  And the impressionable
tend to try to make the boob tube reality the REAL reality.

This from a network that turns around and bleats endlessy in editorials
about the terrible violence on the streets, and how we must ban evil
guns from possession by anybody (except the chosen elite, or those
assigned to protect the chosen elite while they are on duty, of course).

feh.

Hey, I got a GREAT idea!  You folks who want to stop the violence on
our streets?  Make the TV, and movie industry stop portraying the misuse
of firearms, and violence in general, and instead glorify the peacemaker
(not a sheepish peace-at-any-price pacifist, but one who defuses situations
via means other than blowing them away or beating them into a pulp).
When a story line needs guns involved, glorify the trained, and responsible
use.  Make the toad who pulls the gun on every trivial excuse look like
the idiot he/she is.  Just like I recall (rare) shows stressing the
dedication and training of martial arts, how about stories stressing
the proper training and concentration in the use of guns?  How about
shows showing shooting matches like they show golf matches?  Or does
all this make too much sense?

I wonder if they started getting 239048923423847 letters expressing
such a point of view if it would have any effect...

The major media networks doing otherwise suggests a level of hypocracy
that exceeds about any other example one can dream up.  And the
politicians beating on the gun-banning drum instead of calling the
media and its power of influence and shaping minds to task show just
as high a level of hypocracy.  All the while being protected by THEIR
armed guards.

Kinda sickening when one thinks on it, ain't it...

<I hadda get this off my chest..>

-- 
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" 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Guns, and the necessity to trust our governement.
Organization: NCSU Computing Center
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 00:51:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.000104.14348@athena.mit.edu> sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug23.014936.16269@microsoft.com> marcmil@microsoft.com 
>(Marc Milanini) writes:
> ...
>>Those who actually submit themselves to the law (and register their weapon)
>>are not the ones that commit crimes. The weapons used in crimes are
>>weapons that were legally owned at one point and then fell in the
>>hands of gangsters, one way or another.
>
>Since guns can last for a century if treated well, the "at one point" may
>have been 1920 or thereabouts.  Furthermore, now that criminals have
>guns, more gun control won't affect them--criminals won't turn in their
>guns.

  As a matter of fact - this "legally owned at one point" is both
wrong (in part) and even the portion which is correct is partly 
misleading.

  The firearms which were illegally manufactured or smuggled into
this country were never "legally owned" in this country.  Of the ones
which *were* illegally owned, some of them were stolen from such
sources as the armed forces and the police agencies.  None of these
types of sources would dry up as a result of the proposed gun
registration or control regulations being proposed.

> ...

--henry schaffer
Date: Saturday, 29 Aug 1992 11:09:03 EDT
From: <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Invitation to NRA Freedom Associates
Distribution: usa
 <6373@ucru2.ucr.edu> <1992Aug24.004216.27119@dg-rtp.dg.com>
 <1992Aug27.011932.11330@uc.msc.edu>

And that's it? You seriously believe you can generalize about a
nearly 3-million member organization FROM ONE CALL TO THEIR PHONE MAIL SYSTEM??

I love a good chuckle.


W. K. Gorman
NRA Life
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 3
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:39:20 GMT

In article <viking.714473155@vincent1.iastate.edu>, viking@iastate.edu
(Dan Sorenson) writes:

> In <9g_nn5#@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
> > 
> >Bullshit, Rick.  His MP5 did nothing.  Tony loaded the weapon.  Tony
> >entered that room with the safety off and his finger on the trigger.
> >Tony pointed the weapon at the victim and Tony pulled the trigger.
> 
> 	Again, can you prove this?  If so, end this thread by taking
> it to court.  If not, doesn't Tony deserve a jury to make this decision?

He must have had the weapon pointed at her, or the bullet would not have
hit her.  If the weapon did not malfunction, then he must have pulled the
trigger.  What remains is whether it was intentional, negligent, or otherwise.

> >Tony's MP5 acted like any other inanimate object - it responded by
> >functioning as designed.  Nice try, though, trying to blame an 
> >inanimate object.  Got your HCI card yet?
> 
> 	That MP5 is a machine, and subject to failure or malfunction.

Actually, this could be an easily verified fact.  An inspection by a
decent gunsmith should be able to determine if the weapon malfunctioned
(or is likely to malfunction).

>         And if Tony was innocent, or the law didn't cover or even
> allowed his particular crime?

Negligent homicide is a crime, as are manslaughter, and murder.

-- 
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,alt.society.civil-disob
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: So Much for Iowa.... (Was: Black Market guns)
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:31:10 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Sep1134003@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

|> <	   Ammunition that can be fired in a pistol, when sold, must be
|> <   recorded along with the buyers name, ssn, address, and the like.  
|> 
|> 	Huh. Iowa gets crossed off the list of free states;
|> 	this isn't Federal.

Attention, K-mart shoppers!  This is a policy of Kmart, not of any government.

-- 
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: jbs@rti.rti.org
Subject: Re: New York Times article
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, RTP, NC
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 16:04:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.192410.17444@engage.pko.dec.com> stanley@yngstr.enet.dec.com writes:
>
>Assault Weapons Aren't the Problem  by Gary Kleck
>
>A better strategy would be to enact laws that keep firearms - whether assault
>weapons or regular guns - out of the hand of criminals through the use of
>mandatory computerized background checks of all would-be gun buyers.

Yup, that'll shut down the black market. Brilliant solution, Kleckie.

  -joe
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak)
Subject: K-Mart, Iowa
Originator: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 13:55:46 GMT


hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
In article <ATAYLOR.92Sep1134003@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

>|> <	   Ammunition that can be fired in a pistol, when sold, must be
>|> <   recorded along with the buyers name, ssn, address, and the like.  
>|> 
>|> 	Huh. Iowa gets crossed off the list of free states;
>|> 	this isn't Federal.

>Attention, K-mart shoppers!  This is a policy of Kmart, not of any government.

 Last I checked they don't do this in Colorado.  Must be regional. If
 I lived in Iowa, I would go into K-Mart and buy a box of ammo.  When
 they pulled out the book I would inquire as to what law requires the
 recording.  If they say "state law" or such, tell them bullshit!
 Demand to see the STORE manager.  Start talking about "Invasion of
 privacy", "infringment of the 2nd ammendment". "Lying to you about
 conditions required for the retail sale of ammo", "Civil lawsuit",
 "Filing a complaint with the DA and the BBB". . . . .
 
 And see what happens.  My experience with retail stores like K-mart
 is, if you yell loud enough, they give you what you want.

 This kind of shit by K-Mart PISSES me off!!!

 BTW: The K-Marts out here DON't sell handguns.  Wal-Mart does.  Some
 one on the net mentioned that the K-Mart in NJ (?) does sell handguns.
 This is bizzare since Colorado is a fairly free state for gun owners.

                                Bill Vojak
                                Bill_Vojak@stortek.com
                                NRA, ILA, CFC

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER NOT!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Reading Brady
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:54:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Aug24.194318.24206@crash>, jca@crash.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes:
> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
> >I'm confused, guys.  I can't see that the Brady Bill is saying what 
> >some of you folks say it does.
> 
> Post the original text.  I don't want YOUR interpretation. 

Jesus, John -- "Thank You For Your Support."

I HAVE posted the relevant portions of this text, a couple of times.

As explained previously, the "original text" I have and the "original
text" other people have differ by one clause -- mine doesn't have the
clause requiring the chief to acknowledge receipt of the BC request.
My text is the one passed by the House, while other people's text is
the one originally submitted to the House.  No word on the Senate
version, except that it is known to differ in at least one instance:
"seven days" is "five business days."
-- 

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: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 2 (was Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
	<1992Aug18.234015.25204@mtu.edu>
	<viking.714195781@vincent1.iastate.edu>
	<DLB.92Aug24134521@fanny.wash.inmet.com>
	<viking.714708697@vincent1.iastate.edu>
	<DLB.92Aug26160514@fanny.wash.inmet.com>
	<viking.714896585@vincent1.iastate.edu>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:41:24 GMT

In article <viking.714896585@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu
(Dan Sorenson) writes:

   That does indeed clear things up.  My only question: "Is the
   popular media a substitute for testimony at the trial?"  Since we
   get no trial due to no prosecution on criminal charges of Tony, I
   suspect your friend knows as little as we do.

Nor did either he or I mean to imply otherwise.

I think that you are arguing for a nicety in language and reference
that is (historically) beyond the Usenet in general.  The general form
of discussions is to assume the facts as generally presented and argue
from them.  No one here has the capability to put anyone in jail, nor
will their opinion affect things one whit.

This is what I called a "false dichomoty".  You seem to assume
(apologies if I am wrong) that arguing from the facts as commonly
presented indicates prejudgement, or absolute judgement.  In some
cases (I think we can all name them), this may be true.  In most
others, it just means that people are arguing from the commonly
available facts.  I am more careful than most about indicating a lack
of judgement concerning the outcome of a trial, and yet I do not come
near to the standard you appear to be espousing.  If you wish to
continue to argue for that standard, by all means do so; nevertheless,
to accuse those who do not follow it of prejudgement may be a little
extreme.

   Side note: the Rodney King Trial cops are up for civil charges now
   from the US Government.  Does this set a precedent that those
   brought up on civil charges can be tried again on criminal?  It
   seems like a simple case of politics to me, but I'd be interested
   in any lawyer-types letting us know if criminal charges can be
   brought if a civil charge fails since it seems a civil charge can
   be brought if a criminal charge fails.

Speaking of misstating facts, I think that you have done so here.  My
belief is that the federal government has brought *criminal* charges
against the officers, charging them with criminally violating Rodney
King's civil writes.  This has been done in the past, and upheld.  The
argument is that these charges are federal rather than state, and that
therefore the double jeopardy rule does not apply (different
governments doing the charging and trying).

Mind you, I disagree with this argument (as much as I think the Rodney
King incident was truly horrible).  I think that this is indeed double
jeopardy, and is unconstitutional.  The Supreme Court opinion holds
here, rather than the David Barton opinion, and the trial will go
forward.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Free the Brady Bill Campaign kicks off
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:55:24 GMT
Keywords: brady bill

"Copyright 1992 by <UPI/Newsbytes/Whoever>
Reposted with permission from the ClariNet Electronic Newspaper newsgroup
clari.<groupname>.  For more info on ClariNet, write to info@clarinet.com or
phone 1-800-USE-NETS."

From: clarinews@clarinet.com (UPI)
Newsgroups: clari.news.issues,clari.local.illinois,clari.news.gov.officials
Subject: 'Free Brady Bill' campaign kicks off
Keywords: gun control, social issues, government officials, government
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:57:29 GMT
Location: illinois
ACategory: national
Slugword: handguns
Priority: regular
Format: daily
ANPA: Wc: 247; Id: z4723; Sel: ilnxg; Adate: 9-1-156pcd
Codes: &nxgdil., &ngodil., tcza....


	CHICAGO (UPI) -- A number of politicians launched a nationwide
campaign Tuesday to win approval of gun control legislation, which has
been held up by a 10-month filibuster.
	Sen. Paul Simon, D-Ill., and a number of Illinois politicians joined
Handgun Control Inc., a handgun safety group based in Washington, in
pushing for passage of the so-called Brady bill, written in the wake of
the 1981 assassination attempt on former President Ronald Reagan.
	The assault wounded press secretary James Brady, a native of
Centralia. He remains confined to a wheelchair.
	The bill would require a seven-day waiting period to buy a gun.
	Simon called on Congress to free the measure ensnared in a 10-month
filibuster of omibus crime legislation.
	``Twenty-two-thousand people in this nation each year are killed by
handguns. No other industrial nation has a record like this,'' Simon
said.
	``The Brady bill has become a pawn in Beltway shenanigans and
epitomizes the very nature of the gridlock in Washington,'' said Carol
Moseley Braun, the Democratic nominee who is making a bid to become the
first black female in the U.S. Senate.
	Cook County State's Attorney Jack O'Malley and other state officials
joined in the ``Free the Brady Bill'' call.
	Handgun Control Inc. said the Midwest gathering was the first of what
will be more than six dozen news conferences around the country calling
for passage of the measure.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: RKBA - are you missing the point?
Date: 1 Sep 1992 16:08:02 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: lightning.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug31.213648.897@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>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...

I'm not sure if it is more weight, so much as more meaning: A jury returns
a verdict of "guilty" or "not guilty", and generally says little else.
It would be very hard to argue from a jury verdict, since no one really
knows _why_ they reached that decision (was it some general principle,
or something unique to that case? Etc...) 
Rulings from higher courts include a (sometimes lengthy) explanation of
the reasoning and principles behind the ruling. At least in theory, this
makes it much clearer when and how they are relevant.

						  Frank Crary
						  CU Boulder
						  fcrary@pprince.Colorado.EDU

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:28:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.004352.8495@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (
Kevin Darcy) writes:>>In article <1992Aug24.044300.8415@rotag.mi.org>
>>        kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>
>>]In article <76840@ut-emx.uucp> mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider) writes:
>>]>In article <1992Jul28.031212.26812@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>>]certain provision". My point is that the intended EFFECT of the 2nd Amendment 
>>]RKBA is to empower the well-regulated militia to promote the security of a
>>]free state. By _expressio unius est exclusio alterius_, then, we can
>>]exclude all other effects of the provision, i.e. the alleged "universal"
>>]RKBA does not exist.
>>
>>Then what of the ninth amendment, Kebbin?  To wit:  "The enumeration
>>in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny
>>or disparage others retained by the people."  
>
>Then argue for the "universal" RKBA on 9th Amendment grounds. That's a 
>strategy that might even garner my support. Just don't try to heist the
>2nd Amendment. That, in contrast, is a Constitutional shortcut.

     Arguing on Ninth Amendment ground might certainly be appropriate,
but so is arguing for the Second Amendment.   Considering it *does*
have all the requisite properties.  (People, arms, bear, etc.)

     It is, however, generally the kiss of death to try and argue for
something on Ninth Amendment grounds.  You will be summarily ignored.
It's been a long time since anybody took Amendments Nine and Ten 
seriously.

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|            veal@cs.utk.edu          Division of Continuing Education    |
===========================================================================
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: ICLU Commission on the 2nd Amendment and Gun Control
Date: 1 Sep 1992 16:36:30 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: lightning.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug31.215736.1867@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>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?

However people have said this with respect to the First Amendment: The
states can not ban public assembly, but they can require a permit
for large demonstrations. Further, states can legally declare a 
state of emergency, or courts can issue an order to disperse, and
temporarily restrict public assmebly.

I think that, as a general rule, the states have a greater degree of
freedom under the Bill of Rights than does the federal government.

Further, the Second Amendment says, "shall not be infringed" not
that the government "shall make no laws respecting" (as in the
First Amendment.) This might allow for regulations that do not
"infringe" on the right. For example, the requirement to fill out
a record of sale when buying a gun is a federal regulation that does
not really infringe on the right.

I think it is fairly clear that the states can pass _some_ laws on
the subject (though the wisdom of such laws is another matter), but they
cannot pass restrictive or prohibitive laws. Where exactly the line should
be drawn is _very_ unclear.

                                            Frank Crary
					    CU Boulder
					    fcrary@pprince.Colorado.EDU

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: No Difference Between the Parties?
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:11:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.212054.15455@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> clc5q@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) writes:
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!utkcs2!gatech!darwin.sura.net!uvaarpa!murdoch!uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU!clc5q
>From: clc5q@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman)
>Subject: No Difference Between the Parties?
>Message-ID: <1992Sep1.212054.15455@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>Originator: clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU
>Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
>Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
>Distribution: usa
>Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:20:54 GMT
>
[snip:  Dempublican-supporting article deleted]

>
>So, 55% of the Democrats go one way, and 88% of the Republicans go the other
>way. Yep, there's no difference between the two parties, is there?
>
>Does anyone have a recent counterexample of a bill in either House that:
>
>1) Was not bundled with 50 unrelated items,
>2) Was a clear showdown on a gun or hunting issue, and
>3) Showed no real difference in the party voting patterns?
>

In 1988 George Bush said: "No new gun laws."

Over the next four years he:

Supported a ban on "assault weapons."

Banned an number of "assault weapons" by executive fiat.

Agreed to sign the Brady Bill if he could get our other civil liberties 
reduced as well.

This is not a supporter of my civil liberties as protected under the Second 
Amendment.  There is no difference between the Spendycrats and the 
Damnpublicans anymore.

Vote libertarian.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns