HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bz269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James D. Del Vecchio)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Toy guns
Date: 24 Dec 1992 12:05:12 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bz269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James D. Del Vecchio)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, jon@cyclone.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum) says:

>I am essentially a civil libertarian with anarchistic leanings so my
>stance on weapons should be pretty easy to figure out.  However, I
>feel that toy weapons are not a good thing.  Many of my friends are
>surprized by this and perhaps rightfully so.  But they are even more
>amazed when I tell them that I would prefer to give a youth a real
>weapon (with the proper attention to maturity, training, etc.).

>How say you all?

This has been pounded out in rec.guns during the last few weeks.
There are many who forbid toy guns in their homes, but encourage
the supervised use of firearms by their children.

Jim D
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 18:31:28 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <1992Dec31.194342.14590@henson.cc.wwu.edu> 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.   

You're right.  In AZ adults and children can carry, but not concealed.

>>What percentage of California residents over 18 carry legally licensed
>>handguns?  You're speculating.
>
>	Close to zero.  You almost have to be a cop in that state, 
>if I understand correctly.

So there seems to be little information on what would happen if everyone
in California over the age of 18 was issued a gun.

I believe that it would be a catastrophe.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jim@specialix.com (Jim Maurer)
Subject: Re: A thought about fully automatic weapons...
Organization: Specialix Inc.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:17:14 GMT

mikepb@lupus.dell.com (Michael P. Brininstool) writes:

>In article <102969@netnews.upenn.edu>, yee@mipg.upenn.edu (Conway Yee) writes:

>>> First of all, I note that the military has not yet decided to forsake
>>> automatic weapons in favor of semi-automatic weapons.  Could it be that
>>> short bursts are indeed useful?  I note that the M-16 is capable of
>>> 3 shot bursts.

>The M-16's I have fired had no 3 round limitation.  They could fire
>continuously until either your magazine was empty of the barrel melted.

The M-16A2 has a "3" position on the selector, in this position it
fires a three round burst.  I believe only the US Marines Corps has
bought this version.  It also does full auto.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: TIME is on the ropes, asks for forgiveness
Summary: I'm giving them one last chance
Keywords: TIME, pleading
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 08:49:27 GMT

	I recieved a phone call this evening.  It was a telemarketing
ploy from Time, Inc.  They wanted me to renew my subscription, since
I was a "preferred customer" and all that rot.  I told the guy that I
was not interested in Time Magazine until they reversed their anti-
Second Amendment policy and reported the news alone instead of
manufacturing it.  I figured I could hang up in about two seconds.

	Instead the guy on the phone read my letter to Time, Inc to
me, interjecting how Time, Inc has been the subject of major thrashing
on these and other points, and how the latest board meeting has
determined that the purpose of the magazine is to make money, not to
promote any specific viewpoint.  It was quite convincing.

	The offer was for 40 weeks at $0.60/issue, cancel at any time,
and please try Time again and see if it hasn't responded to my concerns.

	I gave in.  As a subscriber, I hold much more influence than I
do as a non-subscriber, and I am frankly willing to give Time one last
chance.  During the confirmation of my subscription, I made it a point
to mention that I would give Time "one last chance, but only one."
We'll see how it turns out.

	For $0.60/issue, Time can barely afford to print the magazine.
Should anti-gun sentiment be expressed, my letter and subscription
cancellation are already written.  I just hope Time has listened.  I'll
give them the benefit of the doubt one time, and only once.  Having
worked as a telemarketer, I know those confirmations are taped and
kept for at least a year; should I cancel, I can take Time to the
cleaners insofar as payment is concerned.  I'm covered, and have
little to nothing to lose.  Perhaps I can influence them?

	Anybody else recieved this phone call?

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "Are you *SURE* he's worth a Harley-Davidson?" -- my grandmother  >
< to my girlfriend, about me.  "I'd better not say" -- my girlfriend >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mikepb@lupus.dell.com (Michael P. Brininstool)
Subject: Re: A thought about fully automatic weapons...
Reply-To: mikepb@lupus.dell.com
Organization: Dell UNIX Support
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:02:46 GMT

In article <102969@netnews.upenn.edu>, yee@mipg.upenn.edu (Conway Yee) writes:

>> First of all, I note that the military has not yet decided to forsake
>> automatic weapons in favor of semi-automatic weapons.  Could it be that
>> short bursts are indeed useful?  I note that the M-16 is capable of
>> 3 shot bursts.

The M-16's I have fired had no 3 round limitation.  They could fire
continuously until either your magazine was empty of the barrel melted.

>> Second, I take notice the arguments posed on rec.radio.cb and
>> rec.radio.amateur.misc  For those of you who are not familiar with current
>> FCC rules, CB's are restricted to 4watts.  Amateur radios (aka ham radios)
>> can transmit as much as 1500watts.  In this analogy, CB's are the semi
>> automatic weapons and Amateur radios are the fully automatic weapons.

I would look at it more like this.  The CB's are 50 cal or less and the
HAMs at 1500 Watts are the howitzers.

>> In rec.radio.cb, the posters are constantly arguing that increased power
>> does not buy you a whole heck of a lot.  Most of the advantages come from
>> a better antenna.  Thus, high power amplifiers are not useful and not a
>> good idea.  On rec.radio.amateur.misc this is not an issue at all.  Better
>> transmissions are achieve using both better antennas and higher power.  If
>> hams were to take the "lessons" from rec.radio.cb to heart, all would be
>> operating QRP (low power) and hoisting up mammoth antennas yet the typical
>> ham transciever runs at circa 100watts output.  Only those interested in
>> low power do so.  Those who are not transmit at far higher power levels.
>> 
>> Could it be that the arguments saying that fully automatic weapons are not
>> that useful fall in the same category as those found in rec.radio.cb ?
>> I wonder.  Anybody care to comment?

Could be that it is very similar.  Fully automatic weapons have their
place.  The main purpose of the second amendment is, as a last resort, the
people should still have the ability to overthrow a tyranical government.
If the people are going to fight fully-auto equipped men, than they, also,
should have access to the same equipment.

>> Criticism and comments to tpg.  Flames to me (and will be cheerfully and
>> promptly stored in /dev/null).

------------------------------++----------------------------------------------|
| #include "std/disclaimer.h" || MICHAEL P. BRININSTOOL mikepb@lupus.dell.com |
|-----------------------------++--------++------------------------------------|
| IF LIBERALS INTERPRETED THE 2ND       || "An armed society is a polite      |
| AMENDMENT, THE WAY THEY DO THE FIRST, ||  society!"  -- Heinlein            |
| CARRYING A GUN WOULD BE MANDATORY!    ||                                    |
|---------------------------------------++-------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hunter@quake.sylmar.ca.us (James Collins)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Quake Public Access, Sylmar CA
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 18:48:31 GMT

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

> 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.

Ahh, but Andy, they *do*.  At least lately,  here in LA, they've been 
getting guns from a lotta gun shops.  Of course, they aren't buying them 
(In fact, they're breaking in and stealing them...), but they are getting 
them.  Hmm, but I don't think that's what they were talking about... :)



---------------------------------------------------------------------
James Collins                        | Tips to live by from Rodney King
hunter@quake.sylmar.ca.us            | and Reginald Denny...
james.collins%bbs@quake.sylmar.ca.us | STAY... IN... THE... CAR...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: joan@koala.berkeley.edu ()
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 3 Jan 1993 05:25:19 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: koala.berkeley.edu



Rick's original comment was something like...

]>>>In article <9212311249.09@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
]>>>>What most people in this thread want is the right for anyone to just
]>>>>walk into Fred's Gun Store, plunk down the money, and walk out with
]>>>>the gun and ammo of choice.
	[later posts deleted]
]>>>>I maintain that I wouldn't want to live in a state like that, as it
]>>>>would rapidly turn into a scenario like Beirut.

John's reply
]>>Gee, Rick, don't ever come to Georgia then because any resident can 
]>>just walk into any gun store, plunk down the loot and walk out with
]>>a gun.  Not only can I buy a pistol any time I want, I can also
]>>get a non-discretionary concealed carry permit just for the asking
]>>and the payment of a small fee.  (non-discretionary in that the gov't
]>>cannot withold the permit from people who meet the law abiding criteria.)

Rick's reply
]>So, do you carry a gun 24 hours a day?

John's post
]>>I should note in passing that with the exception of Atlanta,
]>>Georgia has one of the lower crime rates in the nation.  I should
]>>also note that until last year when we defeated it in court, Fulton
]>>County (atlanta), the FBI's 2nd place murder capital of the nation 
]>>HAD a waiting period.  Is the crime rate a coincidence?

Rick's reply
]>Does everyone in Atlanta carry a gun now?

	I've edited to make it shorter and clearer.  I thought
John had made the point that the ability to buy firearms immediately
did not necessarily lead to a Beruit-like situation.  Are you
conceding that point, trying to change the subject to avoid conceding
the point, or laying the groundwork for a refutation of the point?

	The reason I ask is that I do enjoy reading reasoned debate
and would like to encourage it.

	Joan V		(Hoping my attributions are correct)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT)
Subject: Re: Lloyd Bensten
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 18:34:31 GMT

bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:

>A friend of mine recently pointed out that as Secretary of the Treasury
>Lloyd Bentsen will be over the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and
>therefore have some influence on the Clinton Administration's gun control
>policies.  I have understood that Bentsen is pro-gun.  So is his presence
>in this position likely to have any moderating impact of importance on
>Clinton's policies?

Unfortunately, Lloyd is a politician -- he`ll probably do whatever
Our Glorious Leader tells him.  Who in turn will be listening to
Sarah Brady, instead of the majority of American people.

Feel free to substitute the words "lying scumbag snake" for politician
and "pot smoking, wife cheating hippy" for O.G.L.  At least that's
what it says in My dictionary.

I expect all imported weapons of any type, sporting or not, to be
banned Jan. 21 per GCA `68.  Eliminating "assault weapons" appears
several times in Clinton's book of campaign promises(lies), as a
way to curb crime.  After all, if you repeat a lie often enough people
may start to believe it.  Maybe even yourself.

Merry Christmas 
J. S. Kennedy
kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: New Libertarian Gun Control Book
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 00:01:35 GMT

>Not to a Constitutionalist.  Since the Federal government isn't delegated any
>powers to regulate guns, such power is reserved either to the States or to
>the people.  State policy could very well be laissez-faire.

I am not so sure. First in cases like the first ammendment it says
"congress shall make no law respecting..." clearly defining congress as
the body that is limited. This effectivly means that the federal
government can make no law regarding the establishment of religion but
does not necessarily limit the states.

However the second states "...shall not be infringed" with no reference
to an limits on who this applies to. I take that to mean that nobody
shall infringe.

And further more the 14th ammendment states that the rights and privileges
of US citizens are to be respected by the states also.

Therefor the states are limited by the second as well. I would say there
is better justification for a state setting up a theocracy than there
is for states instituting gun control.

				mike
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: Media Error/Bias Log proposal
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 20:07:00 GMT
Organization: N/I

In article <1h0k24INNi1f@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bz269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James D. Del Vecchio) writes:
[ ... ]
>Jack Keith, the senior editor say that he gets no instructions from
>Gannet on what slant to put on things, and he just writes what he
[ ... ]
>terms was that neither himself or his reporters know anything 
>about guns, and that these are honest mistakes.   I believe him.

No problem.  I'd believe him too.  The first time.


[ ... ]
>for a common term, and that it was a mistake of not being technically
>aware.  He said that "if the police say the perp used a purple-people- 
[ ... ]
>He said it was not an attempt at sensationalism, but just a mistake.
>He said they just didn't have a clue about guns.

Given that crime is on every American's top-ten-concerns list, and
guns are the media's favorite way of dramatizing it, you'd think maybe
they'd go get a clue.  But hey, no problem.  We're all busy folks too.
I'd believe him.  The second time.

But if it keeps on happening ... ?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 21:52:50 GMT

In article <9301021331.43@rmkhome.UUCP>
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

>In article <1992Dec31.194342.14590@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.ed (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>>rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>
>>>What percentage of California residents over 18 carry legally licensed
>>>handguns?  You're speculating.
>>
>>	Close to zero.  You almost have to be a cop in that state,
>>if I understand correctly.
>
>So there seems to be little information on what would happen if everyone
>in California over the age of 18 was issued a gun.
>
>I believe that it would be a catastrophe.

        Nobody has suggested that people be *issued* a gun.  If
you're talking about *issuing* guns then you're talking about
a different thing.  If I or the government are going to *give* people
guns, then they've got some basis for setting up restrictins for
*those* guns.
        If you start *giving* guns to people who don't want them
you're certainly going to run into a problem.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Shooting License
Date: 23 Dec 1992 13:33:02 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

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.
>The following are some possible characteristics of such a license:
>
>1.  It would NOT be required to purchase or own a gun.
>2.  It WOULD be required to use a gun.
>3.  Obtaining this license would be similar to obtaining a driver's
>    license.
>4.  State training would be offered, as it is for driving a car.
>5.  Insurance would be required, as it is for driving a car.

In your scenario, would the license holder then be entitled to unlimited
carry, of whatever arm he wanted, concealed or otherwise?
 

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: PGP v. 2.1 Released
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 18:18:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.200700.10040@nsscmail.att.com> cel@nsscmail.att.com (clayton EDward LEIHY iii) writes:
>
>What kind of gun is a PGP??
>Is it some kind of a <G>un <P>rogram??

It's a <P>op <G>un <P>rogram put forth by people who don't know how
to edit newsgroup lines, but who like to Pop Off about inappropriate
subjects.

Gary

-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
From:  (MJ)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Busted: Harry Connick Jr. in Illinois
Date: 29 Dec 92 17:49:10 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Distribution: usa

#Harry Connick Jr. getting arrested ... trying to bring an unloaded 9mm
pistol #... JFK airport in New York City, according to CNN.

>  I was trying to figure out what license she was talking
> about - NYC or NY state, I would think.

>   - Les Johnson  (les@ulysses.att.com) 1+908-582-5493
>        "One Bell System - It Works"

NY State law, loaded or unloaded, mandatory 1 year in the crowbar hotel. 
Course, I believe Bernie Geotz was the only one to serve time on that law
alone.
NYC laws will compound this. Transport of handguns acquired out of state of
residence without a dealer's license (FFL) is a federal no-no.  And any
attempt to bring a firearm past the airport detectors/US Marshals gets a
lot of attention.  It's a good thing Ol' Harry earns a livin' with his
voice cause I doubt he could do it with his bean.

MJ

[As if you didn't already know, my opinions are my own and not my
company's.]
From: bz269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James D. Del Vecchio)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: For gun control? No not really.
Date: 22 Dec 1992 17:55:06 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bz269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James D. Del Vecchio)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) says:

>I believe that the proability of being shot is too high. There must
>be an environmental change;

>1) restrict gun availability
	Restrict from whom?  We already bar legal purchace by
minors, felons, and the insane.  Who else would you bar? 

>2) restrict ammunition availabilty
	Again, restrict from whom?  We already bar legal 
purchace by minors, and in many states felons and the insane.  
Who else would you bar? 

(Note that the ease of making ammo at home makes restrictions 
on factory ammo impotent.   With my crude $20 press, I can make ~100
rds of pistol ammunition an hour.  With a better press, loading 
home-made ammo is much faster.)

>3) allow people to create communities where the *can* control
>   guns and their use.
	You mean allow local governments to ban the keeping or bearing
of arms?  That is the case in NYC, DC, and parts of Il, like Chicago.
Is the result what you intended?   What utopias they are.


>I don't intend to shock anyone. If the creation of autonomous
>Anarcho-Capitalist zones shocks you, sorry. Jail me? Because

	If anarchist = no gov, and Capitalist = lassiez faire,
then how do you wring "Social Engineering" out of the two?
Sounds like a misuse of the term.

>I am a Anarcho-Capitalist that believes Social Engineering is
>possible. Or is my crime that I find the present proabilities
>to compel me to gamble with my life. I but no such impositions

	_Life_ forces you to gamble with your life.  The only
way around it is to die.

>on you. Infact all I ask is to join with others who think as
>I do and create a sane and safe enviromnet.

	Say how.
Jim Del Vecchio
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns