HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: uk09365@nx02.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: Gun-Free School Zones and Gun Cases
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:29:28 GMT
Distribution: na
X-Bytes: 

In article <shu9cINNqig@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank  
Crary) writes:
> In article <1992Apr15.183906.13600@ms.uky.edu> uk09365@nx02.mik.uky.edu  
(robert i kesten) writes:
> >I repeat.  The Federal Gun Free School Zones Act specifically exempts  
guns  
> >which are owned / discharged on private property.  This law (for all  
its  
> >flaws) does not threaten you for owning firearms at your house.
> 
> What about guns taken out of your home (within 1000 ft. of a school) on  
the
> way to a shooting range or a gunsmith? It seems to me this law threatens 
> ownership, but in an indirect way (e.g. you can own, but not buy, sell, 
> repair or transport a firearm.)
    You can still transport your firearms off your property within the  
zone if #1) they are unloaded and locked up OR #2) you have a state or  
county/city issued carry license/permit.
> 
> >... but, a point should be made that it would not matter what CA (or  
any  
> >other state's) law was on legal ownership / carry; this is a Federal  
law.
> 
> It's almost pointless to ask, but from which Constitutionally delegated
> power does the federal goverment derive it's authority to pass and  
enforce
> such a law? Last time I checked, this sort of law was "reserved to the
> States, respectively, or to the people."
> 
> 	                                    Frank Crary
> 					    UC Berkeley

I never said I thought this law was legitimate either!  I am very  
disturbed that its on the books and want to find out more about its  
current enforcement.  I think it massively oversteps federal bounds; could  
be a good 2nd Amend. test case (except, even if the current Sup. Court  
accepts the individual rights interpretation; they could say that school  
zone bans are valid "time, place, and manner" restrictions on firearms  
..)

I think the key is to get a more sympathetic congress.  JMO.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian)
Subject: Re: Susan is still only thinking about herself
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date:  9 Apr 92 22:59:29 GMT

fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary) writes:

>In article <32345@darkstar.ucsc.edu> cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Serious Moonlighter) writes:
>>>	Tell me, BTW, why didn't the state appeal against the sentence as
>>>being too lenient?
>>In the United States, it is _illegal_ for the prosecution to appeal a 
>>sentence. Boneheaded law in the worst sense of the word.

>It might make convicting criminals difficult, but I think it is a very 
>good idea. Otherwise, one could be "sentenced" to ten years of court
>appearances and legal fees, at the whim of the local district attorney...

	So you really can't complain when a court hands down a sentence 
which is considered far too lenient by the society around it?  Yet another
case of the land of the weird......

	BTW, Frank, I would have thought you'd have realised that if its
thrown out of the court of appeals, that it can't be re-appealed by the state
again?



--
Brian Ross__________________________________________________________________
	"If it is dangerous to suppose that government is always right, it
will sooner or later be awkward for public administration if most people
suppose that it is always wrong."______________________________J.K.Galbraith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: wayne john warf <wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: (In)sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 13:53:35 -0500

In article <1992Apr16.175029.13001@mcs.anl.gov> shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
>>>				Why not take a look at rec.guns?  You'll find
>>>many of the same  people discussing when lethal force is justified, and
>>>when it's not, as well as alternatives.  I should probably warn you,
>>>though, it's a moderated group.  Unless your postings have some relevant
>>>content, you likely won't be able to post there.
>>
>>	Perhaps thats the problem.  Because it is moderated, by I presume
>>a pro-gun person (who else would take the job on) that people questioning
>>whether or not all the other alternatives have been explored aren't going
>>to get a real look in there, now are they?
>
>WRONG! I participate in several firearms related mailing lists and
>news groups. These are moderated by pro 2nd amendment types but there
>are frequent discussions of when it is appropriate to use lethal force.
>The post are overwelmingly in favor of its use as a last resort. There
>are two opinoins however that I have never seen on these groups.
>
>1. Lethal force should be used for every confrontation.
>2. Lethal force should be used for no confrontation.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
But you see, the gunban types on here can't let go of proposition 2.
If they were to concede that lethal force may at some time be 
necessary, their whole argument would immediately collapse like
the house of cards it is, and make them look even more ridiculous
than they already do. Of course, they're clinging to a delusion, but
they can't let go of that delusion:that's insanity.

>Both extremes are ridiculous.
Sure are.
>
>				mike




-- 
 * Wayne J. Warf ** WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu ** I speak for myself only  *
 * NRA LIFE* *NRA Certified Instructor*Indiana/Pennsylvania CCW Lics. *
 * Indiana University, D&IS, Grad S.of Bus, Bloomington IN 47405 USA  *
 * Compromise is feeding friends to wolves, hoping to be eaten last.  *
From: meyer@team01.enet.dec.com (M Meyer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: King beating correction
Date: 7 Apr 92 12:20:29 GMT
Organization: DEC


In article <1992Apr6.185847.985@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson) writes...
>** sarcastic for the humor impared ***
>-- 
you dont need a cray to do that.   just turn the system upside down an pass
laws that tell us what we *are* allowed to do.  the system seemed to work in
the USSR for many years until it was contaminated by capitolism.  
Or maybe that would be to obvious for the anti constitutionals.. 
....Is that a bad enough joke????
Marty
From: wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (wayne john warf)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: CCW permits
Date: 17 Apr 92 14:29:50 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <6238.29ed8e25@dcatla.uucp> curmw@dcatla.uucp writes:
>
>	I live in Atlanta and have a CCW permit.  I also travel to
>	FL to visit relatives, and I know that FL has a CCW law
>	that is similar to GA's.  Is there any way to obtain a
>	CCW permit in a state in which you do not reside?

There is in some states, for example, I have a resident permit in 
Indiana and a non-resident permit in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania will
give non-resident permits to anyone having a permit in their home state.
Florida, however, does not do this. You must be a resident for at least
6 months prior to applying. I travel to Miami a fair amount, so I've
checked this through pretty carefully, no dice. A Captain at the
Florida Highway Patrol did tell me by phone that you may carry in a
briefcase or other container but that's it.
>
>	My grandad (who lives in FL) thinks that states with similar
>	CCW requirements will honor each others' CCW permits, but I
>	think that is unlikely.
>
If things were rational, your granddad would be right, however these
things are not rational. Only Indiana and Michigan honor out of state
permits.

>	Florida is the only state that I really care about right now;
>	are there any FL residents on the net that might know or
>	be able to find out?  I'd appreciate it.
>
As I said, no dice.
>	BTW, what is this "wymmin" stuff?  Is this a sign of a real
>	inferiority complex?  (Don't respond to me, Susan, you and
>	Brian have been in my kill file for some time now...)
>
Well, a sign of that and the immaturity that she or they accuse others
of. It's kinda like stamping their feet and holding their breath til they're
blue.
>	//Rob Waterson
>	My opinions, *not* DCA's.
>	curmw@dcatla.uucp


-- 
 * Wayne J. Warf ** WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu ** I speak for myself only  *
 * NRA LIFE* *NRA Certified Instructor*Indiana/Pennsylvania CCW Lics. *
 * Indiana University, D&IS, Grad S.of Bus, Bloomington IN 47405 USA  *
 * Compromise is feeding friends to wolves, hoping to be eaten last.  *
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jamaass@bluemoon.rn.com (Jeffrey A. Maass)
Subject: Re: 1000 feet
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 15:43:14 EDT

sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Terminator) writes:

> >In any event, better to be judged by 12...
>                      
>                                           than carried by six.

Better to be judged by 12, sentenced, and raped by 6 than...

Jeff Maass                   Amateur Radio: K8ND (@ W8CQK)
NW of Columbus Ohio                Netmail: jamaass@bluemoon.uucp

GILLETTE'S PRINCIPLE:
  "If you want to make people angry, lie. If you want to make
   them absolutely livid with rage, tell the truth."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Serious Moonlighter)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Salmon (sic) Rushdie's insight into America
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:55:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: darkstar.32303
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz; Open Access Computing


In article <1992Apr7.090047.10104@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>>Personally, I
>>think that Salman Rushdie should have to pay for his bodyguards himself.
>>He's not a government official, after all. Maybe then he'd have second
>>thoughts on the RKBA and what it means for self-defence.
>>
>As you don't even know his views on these matters, don't you
>think you are being a little presumptuous? 
No, not really. The original post that started this whole thread was a
quote from a book of Salman Rushdie's in which he stated comtempt for the
RKBA as practiced in the United States. Therefore, I feel that I have a
pretty good idea of what his views are on the subject.
>Further, I think the
>Hezbollah are a little more determined than the enemies of an average
>fishmonger. 
Perhaps. Organised crime is a form of terrorism too, IMHO, and as they're
trying to make a profit rather than simply fighting for a "cause" like the
minions of Hezbollah, they can get pretty damn vicious.
>Your argument doesn't hold water, and what you write only
>shows your lack of compassion.
It holds water better than some of the flimsy vessels you've held up for
our appreciation, Dave. As for my compassion or lack thereof, I didn't say
that Salman Rushdie shouldn't have protection, only that he should provide
for it himself. (of course, he can't in England, as armed bodyguards are
only available for government officials except by special assignment by the
government, as in his case. So the poor English taxpayers foot the bill for
protecting a millionaire. Piffle.) 

Marc Reeve
cmraman@ucscb.ucsc.edu cmraman@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian)
Subject: Re: Guns and Rape
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date:  7 Apr 92 05:07:11 GMT

sybok@m4-035-17.MIT.EDU (The Terminator) writes:

	For people like Termie I've added back in the point of Kevin's
that Tim was replying so that we can then see it in the context that it
was being made.....

In article <1992Apr02.155725.19415@convex.com>
On Thu, 02 Apr 1992 15:57:25 GMT, Kevin Langston <langston@convex.COM> said:

>     As so many sociological/psychological/criminological studies have shown,
>     criminals lean towards instant gratification, long term rewards and
>     punishments don't mean as much to them. That's why the instant frustration
>     of facing an armed victim is a very real consideration, even for the more
>     hardened criminals. Because it's a NOW function, and they live in the NOW
>     time frame.

>>I think the reason that the "deterrence theory" seems so plausible, is
>>that we assume criminals think like ourselves.  If I were a criminal,
>>I would be deterred by the thought of encountering an armed victim,
>>but I'm not a criminal, so my though tprocesses do not give much
>>insight into the way criminals think.

>Note this last sentence.

>>Unfortunately, criminals do not
>>think of the future, are just the sort of people who will not be
>>deterred by the potential consequences of their actions.

>You just said you don't have much insight into the criminal intellect,
>and then you go on to tell us "just the sort of people" criminals really are.
>That's sleight of hand, not logic.

	And thats quoting out of context, but what have we come to expect
from someone like the oh, so intelligent Termie?


--
Brian Ross__________________________________________________________________
	"If it is dangerous to suppose that government is always right, it
will sooner or later be awkward for public administration if most people
suppose that it is always wrong."______________________________J.K.Galbraith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Perot & Gun control
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:36:39 GMT

>	"I AM FOR GUN CONTROL.  When I was young, everyone had guns,
>	but no one was shooting each other, now everyone has guns, and
>	they're shooting each other."
>
>	I'm not sure what he means by "gun control,"  but you can bet
>	that if he is willing to make that statement, he is no friend
>	of the 2nd ammendment.

Interestingly enough, Perot did discuss what he meant by "gun
control".  He rejected registration.  He also rejected the notion that
disarming anyone other than criminals was "good".  His only active
proposal was punishment for gun crimes, like robbery, murder, assault,
so severe that, in his words, it would deter someone completely
drugged out/drunk.  We can quibble about how well that works, but it
is the NRA party line.

The only questionable statement wrt gun control was in his reference
to machine guns.  If he knows what a machine gun is, he's completely
and publically accepted the NRA position.

Perot also strongly objected to claims that he is "for" gun control;
that's how he introduced his discussion*.  Of course, we do have to
figure out if he's telling the truth ....

-andy doesn't support perot

* - BTW - That's the closest he's come to a substantive discussion
of any issue other than "get me on the ballot"....

--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Text of Ohio House Bill 709
Keywords: gun storage, children
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:20:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T


The HCI folks are apparently going full blast on this; a support
editorial for this garbage showed up in the 4/12 Chicago Tribune's
"WOMENEWS" section, utilising information supplied I think from
HCI's propaganda arm. No NRA or pro-RKBA position was acknowleged,
not supportive statistics for the non-HCI side. The editorial writer
simply sidestepped the issue of education and also used the "10
children killed per day" half-truth to support her position.
From: dbarber@pnet01.cts.com (David C. Barber)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: using guns to stop rapes
Date: 11 Apr 92 01:17:09 GMT
Organization: People-Net [pnet01], El Cajon CA

ejohnson@cs.washington.edu (Eric Johnson) writes:
>This is not necessarily true. I believe, and perhaps some of the women here
>on the net can give their input, the following: An woman who is concerned
>enough about her safety to be armed is typically more aware of her surroundings,
>and more likely to avoid high-risk situations. In short, I believe unarmed
>women are not only more likely to have an attempted rape against them
>completed, (We agree so far I assume, per your own stats) but she is
>also more likely to have attempts against her. While not a woman myself,
>I can relate to that personally. I own and carry a gun, and am concerned
>with my own safety. As such, I avoid places known for high crime, etc,
>and I find that, especially while carrying, I make an extra effort
>to avoid any confrontations, certainly much more so than when I am
>unarmed. I find this common among gunowners who carry.
>
Have you considered that the *most* likely reason that an armed woman may be
raped less often than one who isn't might be that the armed woman does not
walk or act like a victim, but rather someone who has the situation under
control.  The signs may be subtle, but people do pick up on them.

                                        *David Barber*
                                           @}-->----

UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd ucsd nosc}!crash!pnet01!dbarber
ARPA: crash!pnet01!dbarber@nosc.mil
INET: dbarber@pnet01.cts.com

Why is it that a knowledge of science is considered nice,
    but not necessary,
while a knowledge of sex is considered necessary,
    but not nice?
From: asbestos@nwu.edu (Michael A. Atkinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:48:50 GMT
Organization: Chaos


Jeff Clary (clary@iastate.edu) writes:

>As far as fights that can be avoided, I personally agree that walking away
>(or running if necessary) is the way to go.  How about the rest of you
>"violent gun-nuts" out there?

If the only person endangered is myself, or all those endangered are in a
position to flee, then indeed it is the way to go.

I will not flee if I am needed to defend another from a violent attack (I'm
sure that Jeff agrees, although I haven't asked him).

Mickey Mouse^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Susan has been caught in yet another
clear case of hypocrisy (Susan, if you post a rebuttal, please email it to
me as well as posting it, as you still reside in my KILL file).

-- 
Michael A. Atkinson | "Why do bad things happen to good people?" I hear you 
asbestos@nwu.edu    |  cry, to which I say, "SHUT THE HELL UP!" - D.S. Cahr

      A Libertarian, an NRA member, and a firearms owner.
From: vanremme@ee.rochester.edu (Bill VanRemmen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Date: 6 Apr 92 23:05:55 GMT
Organization: Univ of Rochester, College of Engineering and Applied Science

In article <1992Apr3.233526.8883@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>In article <1992Apr2.133214.2390@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr2.015232.12184@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>>> ...  all these whatifs.  ...
>>
>>  My city has a very good Fire Department, and we don't have all that
>>many fires - certainly not enough to keep all those fire fighters
>>busy fighting fires all day long.  What do they do for their normal
>>work shifts?
>>
>>  They spend their time on "whatifs".  They clean and repair their
>>equipment.  They undergo training.  They even train for high-rise
>>fires and Hazmat disasters of the sort which have *never* occurred
>>in this city.  They do inspections.
>>
>>  What a waste of time and effort - being concerned with all these
>>"whatifs".  They shouldn't discuss "whatifs" and certainly shouldn't
>>spend their time and the taxpayers' resources on "whatifs"!  Do I
>>have this right?  
>>
>>--henry schaffer
>>
>>P.S. Or perhaps the Fire Departments in Australia have practices
>>resembling my city Fire Department - and also waste their time
>>on "Henry-type hypotheticals" and "whatifs"?
>
>Well Henry my old mate, you make a good point. We have fire departments
>to worry about what ifs. We don't expect each citizen to own a fire truck and
>firefighting equipment. In much the same way we have police to worry about
>what ifs on the criminal front.... your analogy does not help your case.
>
>-- 
>   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
>    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
>    was swatting at flies.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian)
Subject: Re: Kill for a penny myth
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:13:51 GMT

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

>In article <brian.703209351@coombs> brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) writes:
>>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>>In article <1992Apr11.014355.18095@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>>>>Oh sure Roberta.... like in the case of the guy that said he
>>>>would kill for a penny;
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^
>>>Said person doesn't seem to exist outside Bowman's head.
>>
>>>I'll repeat the relevant put up or shut up.  I'll mail Bowman a check
>>>for AU$5 if he'll first send the penny (or even whatever sum Bowman
>>>finds appropriate) to that person and get evidence showing that s\he
>>>actually killed someone for that sum.
>>
>>>Surely if the penny killer actually exists, Bowman can demonstrate
>>>that "fact"....
>>	
>>	Don't you think its time you learnt to read?  Dave was discussing
>>some who "said he WOULD KILL", not someone who, "said he HAS KILLED".  Learn
>>to recognise the past and the future tense will you?

>"would kill for a penny" is true only if said person will, in fact,
>kill for a penny, regardless of whether or not they have.  I'm
>offering to provide the penny, through Bowman.  If said person won't
>kill after receiving that penny, then "would kill for a penny" is
>false.

	Ah, so we have you _interpreting_ what Dave meant Andy?  Gee,
I wonder how many other posts you have decided to _interpret_ rather
than read?



--
Brian Ross__________________________________________________________________
	"If it is dangerous to suppose that government is always right, it
will sooner or later be awkward for public administration if most people
suppose that it is always wrong."______________________________J.K.Galbraith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald)
Subject: Re: (In)sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date: 16 Apr 92 01:58:40 GMT

rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA) writes:

>In article <1992Apr11.014355.18095@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:

>>Yes.... always the non-violent ways are dismissed. You live
>>in a violent society. You know no better.

>Always?  Come now, Davie, that's an extreme statement, even for you.  Note
>my exact wording:  "inadequate for the particular situation."  Those
>situations where peaceful resolution is adequate are not really appropriate
>for talk.politics.GUNS.  

	What I believe Dave is getting at, and what I'm saying is that you
are making an assumption that the alternative solution has failed.  We don't.
We want to examine it more closely, to see if indeed you had made every
available choice available to you.

>				Why not take a look at rec.guns?  You'll find
>many of the same  people discussing when lethal force is justified, and
>when it's not, as well as alternatives.  I should probably warn you,
>though, it's a moderated group.  Unless your postings have some relevant
>content, you likely won't be able to post there.

	Perhaps thats the problem.  Because it is moderated, by I presume
a pro-gun person (who else would take the job on) that people questioning
whether or not all the other alternatives have been explored aren't going
to get a real look in there, now are they?



--
|  *   |We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men, and if we were free... |
|*    *|as under natural conditions, our motherhood would be our glory. That |
|    ' |function gives women such wisdom and power as no male ever can       |
|   *  |possess. - Elizabeth Cady Stanton____________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns