HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,rec.martial-arts
Subject: Re: A little on self defense...
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:52:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: henson.1992Sep14.215220.23077
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Western Washington University

dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro) writes:

>>	If someone breaks in and does you harm, there is only him to
>>blame.

>Well, you are to blame too.  Think about it.

	I wanted to say that too, but I didn't want to get involved in
any "the police should stop the badguys so I don't have the responsibilty
of preventing him from breaking in and harming me" debates.

	Yes, you have yourself to blame also for allowing someone to 
break in and harm you.

Jim Del Vecchio
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 00:20:24 GMT

In article <5848@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.054700.8995@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> >My understanding of the use of the phrase "well-regulated" is
>> >that we would call it "well-trained" or "smoothly functioning"
>> >today.
>> 
>> Which implies some sort of organizational body training and maintaining
>> them, IMO. Not just any old yahoo who can pull a trigger.
>
>Perhaps you're just not reading again.
>
>The "well-regulated militia" may not be just any old yahoo who can pull
>a trigger, but "the people" includes every old yahoo, even fingerless ones.
>The right is not restricted to the militia, but belongs to the people.

Then what is the purpose and effect of the first clause, pray tell?

>The right of the people shall not be infringed, in order that there be
>enough of them around to form a militia when it is needed.

If they're all psychotic survivalist nuts with a paranoid suspicion of
established government, and armed to the hilt, how the hell are you going
to round them up to form a militia "when it is needed"? Throw them some raw
meat, perhaps? Sounds like a good case could be made (although I personally 
wouldn't go quite that far) that a universal RKBA contributes to the 
INsecurity of a free state, and is therefore completely incompatible with 
the 2nd Amendment.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.society.civil-disob
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Black Market guns
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 19:37:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.182804.4968@dg-rtp.dg.com> meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) writes:

>>>One of the functions of the "thin" cartridge case is to seal the firing
>>>chamber, by expanding against the chamber walls when the cartridge is
>>>fired.  A homemade thick cartridge case will allow hot abrasive gasses
>>>to leak around it, possibly damaging the gun and injuring the shooter.
>>>It won't work "fine".

>>Not in a revolver (where the chamber isn't sealed normally) or, I think,
>>a bolt action rifle (where the bolt should go a long way towards sealing
>>the chamber... 

>Meyers hastily denies all responsibility for the safety of persons
>acting on Crary's assurances -- especially the ones prefaced by "I
>think", "should go a long way", and/or "I would also guess" ...

I did put those phrases in for a reason...

I'm fairly sure, however, a revolver would be fairly safe to fire
in the way mentioned: Hot gas _already_ leakes out of the chamber, and
this dictates how firer holds the gun. If the cartridge didn't seal,
you'd have hot gas coming out of both side of the cylinder. But the
firer's hands aren't any closer to the back of the cylinder than 
to the front (this may be the case only for large frame revolvers:
I have no experience with small farmes...) It would definately be
a _much_ dirtier, and this might mess up the mechanism after a 
number of shots, but I don't see it as a major safety problem. (That's
my opinion, by the way. There is definitely some risk involved, and
I wouldn't personally try it without a good reason.)

>Frank, I enjoy your discussions on the legal and constitutional side.
>Next step:  get a gun, and learn about reloading.  Email me, I'll help.

I have one (and I learned the hard way about hot gas and correctly holding
a revolver; but I've gotten worse burns cooking diner, so I don't consider
hot gas leakage to be all that dangerous.) I don't reload, but considering
everyone who does uses thin-walled cases, I'm not sure that's relevant...)

                                                  Frank Crary
                                                  CU Boulder
From: leone@GANDALF.SSW.COM (Bob Leone)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 11 Sep 92 17:55:23 GMT

ian@sinix.UUCP (Ian Malone) writes:

> What do you do with borderline idiots who just continue to have children,
> and consequently get increased welfare and child care payments.  I am _not_
> talking about a women or families that have recently hit upon hardtimes,
> I am talking about the chronically poor, and clueless. People that do not
> think about how they are going to feed these children, they just mindlessly
> continue to crank out these unfortunate welfare babies.
> 
> Where do you draw the line between their freedoms and the tax payers's
> checkbooks? 

Personally, I feel this is another area that the government should get out
of entirely. I would say: leave it to private charity. Take the money
govt spend on this and let the taxpayers keep it, and let the taxpayers
instead contribute to charities that will take care of such people.
Don't tell me that private charitable contributions are not enough to
handle the problem. When last I looked, total charitable contributions
were in the range of $100 Billion/year. I'm sure many people would
shift from sending their money to the Boy Scouts (or whatever) to the
Salvation Army (or whatever), if such were really needed. I contend
that the govt's effective nationalization of charitable services for
the poor has produced a net increase in their suffering.

People who want to solve problems can contribute to charities which
have a track record in getting poor people trained to be productive
workers. People who really want to support indolence can do so (with
their own money).

A private charity can exercise discretion on how they spend their money.
They can say "We'll support you, but you'll have to undergo training
in exchange for the money (And really stay awake in class, too!)".

They can say "We'll take care of giving you prenatal care, and getting
a doctor to deliver your baby, and support your kid afterwards. But only 
if you agree to get your tubes tied!". 

Etc.

If someone is in favor of letting poor women choose whether or not to have
a baby, then I, as a taxpayer, in turn, demand the choice of whether or not
to support them.

Bob Leone (leone@gandalf.ssw.com)
(The opinions expressed are my own.)

    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.  The strongest reason
    for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last
    resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
	   - Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, June 1776
	     1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Text of S. 2913 (Chafee handgun confiscation)
Date: 9 Sep 92 11:39:43 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


I wonder if there are any job openings for computer geeks in
Switzerland or the former Soviet Union?

I've got a feeling I'll be moving there within the next ten years to
retain whatever shreds of freedom I have left.

Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-P  LPVa NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E"
Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia
Send e-mail for an application and more information
----------------------------------------------------------------
"...I am opposed to all attempts to license or restrict the arming of
individuals...I consider such laws a violation of civil liberty, 
subversive of democratic political institutions, and self-defeating
in their purpose."
        - Robert Heinlein, in a 1949 letter concerning "Red Planet"
-- 
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jdw@unislc.uucp (James Warren)
Subject: Re: Seattle Buy-Back Update
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:01:43 GMT

From article <6356@transfer.stratus.com>, by cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares):
> In article <1992Sep11.153715.10191@unislc.uucp>, jdw@unislc.uucp (James Warren) writes:
>> When faced with the greater fear of owning a gun, why did they do it?
>> Are they just thrill seekers looking for the scariest form of life to
>> live, and if so why did they suddenly change their minds?  
> 
> No, they probably inherited it in some way -- either from a dead relative,
> a tenant left it behind, etc.

Very possible, but that's not the way I took the post to mean.

> 
>> In general, NRA wants to
>> keep guns out of the hands of criminals and incompetent persons while
>> not restricting the use of guns by law-abiding citizens.
> 
> I have two minds about this.  Anyone who turns in a $400 gun for $50 shows
> at least one symptom of being an incompetent person.  If they kept the gun,
> they probably would have been unwilling or unable to use it effectively
> anyway.  I can't get all excited about the fact that a fool and his gun
> were soon separated.

I agree here, too.  I just wish that they would sell me a few for $50.

> -- 
> 
> 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...
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:20614 talk.politics.misc:43975
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment Myths
Date: 5 Sep 92 03:28:46 GMT
Organization: Victoria University of Technology

In article <1992Sep2.233128.9231@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>I'm afraid Andy Freeman and C. D. Tavares have been preaching to
>the converted (though doing a good job of it): Mr. Wojcike redirected
>follow-ups to talk.politics.guns only, so the people on talk.politics.misc
>have been seeing only one side of the discussion.
>
There *is* only one side! The right side. The anti RKBA side.

Cheers,

Dave
-- 
" And so they took Ned Kelley and hanged him in the jail,
  For he fought singlehanded although in iron mail.
  And no man singlehanded can hope to break the bars;
  It's a thousand like Ned Kelly who'll hoist the flag of stars"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment Myths
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 05:30:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.031300.5214@Princeton.EDU> pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
>If I were writing the Bill of Rights now, there wouldn't be any such
>thing as the Second Amendment ... This has been subject to one of the
>greatest pieces of fraud - I repeat the word fraud - on the American
>public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.
>                                 - Former Chief Justice Warren Burger

I'm afraid I'm not impressed with his reasoning: From all his published
statements, his logic goes no further than "It only applies to 
the National Guard and state militias. Guns are bad." (A paraphrase...)
I haven't heard him produce any evidence or facts to back this up.

It is also worth noting that Chief Justice Burger is a strong
supporter of judicial activism and, while on the bench, based his
opinions on how he thought the Constitution _should_ read, not what
it actually said.

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Text of S. 2913 (Chafee handgun confiscation)
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:57:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Twilight Zone

First of all, thanks very much, Larry, for posting this.  

Second: I just finished reading the text and I must say it is a bit scary.
If we were in a different time I'd probably be laughing till tears came
because this whole bill, every single rotten word of it, is so unimaginably
ridiculous that I dont think I'd be able to imagine it as anything but some
persons very imaginative joke.   However, this *is* the 1990's and the fact
that I, a reasonably intelligent young adult, could see this this tripe as
anything to be even remotely looked upon as serious, is in itself pretty
scary.

What would we all do if this crap actually was to be enacted into law?  What
indeed.

	-Andy V.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Why a sawed-off shotgun?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:07:38 GMT

In article <fbPY02lS20ew01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> bws20@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Brian W Simmons) writes:
>[Concerning the Weaver case.]
> It seems to me that murdering a federal law enforcement official is
>sufficient reason for bloodshed. 

As I understand it, the official in question entered Mr. Weaver's
property openly carrying a firearm, without identifying himself
showing a warrant or wearing a uniform.

I have also heard Mr. Weaver was at odds with some neo-nazi organization.
He may very well have mistaken the federal agent for a member of
this organization trying to kill him. Certainly there is nothing wrong
with fealing threatened by an armed, unidentified trespasser; nor in
acting in self-defence.

It isn't clear that Mr. Weaver _was_ acting in self-defence, but at
the moment the facts are so unclear that this is a real possibility.
Last time I checked, the accused was given the benifit of the doubt.

                                                     Frank Crary
                                                     CU Boulder


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties
Organization: Me, Myself and I 
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 04:10:14 GMT

In article <27AUG92.11530738@umbc1.umbc.edu> williamf@umbc1.umbc.edu writes:
- >one that seems to have been forgotten by the majority of the people over
- >the last 200+ years. I'd bet the founding fathers like Madison, Jefferson and
- >the like would roll over in their graves to hear this nonsense coming
- >out of the DumbOCratic party! This is a very serious issue and needs
- >to be understood by all now lest we give away our future liberty!
-  
-   Geez, this nonsense is really beginning to overflow.  You guys seem to 
-   have no concept of American democracy and how it works.  The idea that 
-   *any* American believes that our political institutions would allow the
-   establishment of a private police force, armed to the hilt and responsive
-   only to the president, betrays an insularity thats frightening.  Heck, we've

	If so, please explain the so-called War on Drugs.  Please explain 
   how RICO doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment.  After all, the American 
   people, pardon me, "our political institutions" wouldn't permit the 
   Federal government to get away with such blatant civil rights violations. 
   
-   got several federal agencies, DEA, US Customs, Secret Service and FBI that
-   are supposed to be fighting the war on crime and obviously failing at the
-   task so why not a national police force?  There's widespread agreement among

	Case in point.  Where in the US Constitution is the Federal 
   government delegated the power to ban psychoactive substances?  
   When the Feds banned alcohol, they needed a Constitutional amendment 
   because of that annoying little thing known as the Tenth amendment.  
   When was it (the 10th) repealed?  Or is the WoD unconstitutional???  

-   law enforcement and political folks that the aforementioned agencies *don't*
-   co-ordinate their effort well, don't share their resources and are jealous 
-   of each other.  Establishing a new agency by peeling off pieces of these 
-   agencies and point it directly against street crime and drug interdiction was
-   a) one of the proposals put forward by the national task force on crime 
-      prevention and drug policy.
-   b) part of the adminstrative order establishing the office of the drug czar.
-   c) promoted by various congresspeople from both sides of the aisle. 
-   While I admittedly haven't seen Gov. Clinton's proposal for a NPF its 
-   objectives, I am sure, are in keeping with the wishes of urban america vs.

	Opinion or Fact?  

	Regardless, slavery was "in keeping with the wishes" of Southern 
   voters.  Are you suggesting that slavery was a good thing too?  Feh!


-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  Don't Miss Meals 
  kossack@qvi.com  |       Bag Your Diet
  +1 713 240 2073  |            Eat More Fast Food
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: ICLU Commission on the 2nd Amendment and Gun Control (Long!)
Date: 9 Sep 92 00:30:44 GMT
Organization: Victoria University of Technology

In article <gqrn93-@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>
>>>firearms deaths each year.   Get ready to register the sexual organs of 
>>>your preference.  :-)
>>>
>>I wish Susan was still around. She would have something to
>>say about this pathetic attempt at humour!
>
>So what's stopping you from re-inventing her again like you did the last 
>time?

Put up or shut up.
>
-- 
" And so they took Ned Kelley and hanged him in the jail,
  For he fought singlehanded although in iron mail.
  And no man singlehanded can hope to break the bars;
  It's a thousand like Ned Kelly who'll hoist the flag of stars"
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment Myths
Date: 12 Sep 92 05:51:16 GMT
Organization: Victoria University of Technology

In article <DLB.92Sep10103905@fanny.wash.inmet.com> dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes:
>
>In addition, stating that the Second Amendment is vague and ambiguous
>does not make it so.
>
Yes. And stating white is white does not make it so. But neverthless
it is still white, just as the Second Amendment is vague and ambiguous.

-- 
" And so they took Ned Kelly and hanged him in the jail,
  For he fought singlehanded although in iron mail.
  And no man singlehanded can hope to break the bars;
  It's a thousand like Ned Kelly who'll hoist the flag of stars"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Subject: Re: Guns, and the necessity to trust our governement.
Reply-To: kossack@qvi.com
Organization: Scenic Downtown Hell
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 05:37:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.194528.24885@cbfsb.cb.att.com> osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) writes:
>	Question:  What if you are homeless?  From what you have read here
>	it would seem that the homeless are effectively denied their right
>	to keep and bear arms.  What about retired persons that live in a
>	Winnebago or on a boat with no permanent address?  Can they purchase?

	Hopefully, the fellow living in the Winnebago has a license 
   to drive, which should contain the necessary information for the  
   dealer to "cause the transferee to be identified in any manner 
   customarily used in commercial transactions."  [178.124(c)]      

	However, you are correct that the record keeping requirements  
   of Title 27, Part 178 would prohibit someone without valid ID from 
   purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer, unless they know each 
   other.  However, this does not prevent the non-ID-ed fellow from 
   purchasing a firearm via a private sale, if state law permits.  On 
   the other hand, I don't think the courts will buy your reasoning. 
   After all, if NYC's permit system doesn't violate RKBA ... 

-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  Don't Miss Meals 
  kossack@qvi.com  |       Bag Your Diet
  +1 713 240 2073  |            Eat More Fast Food 
  
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:20881 alt.pagan:9223
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: pagan self-defense
Date: 13 Sep 92 23:17:41 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Western Washington University


> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:

>Many of these exchanges are taking place TOO quickly, due to the fact
>that sometimes -- and this is just too fucking bad for the NRA types --
>the existence of guns does sometimes promote their use.  You lose your
>temper, pick the thing up, and it acts so quickly that your freedom of
>choice is effectively negated.  Before you have time to cool down and
>think rationally, someone has been killed.

Those damn forks, I know just what you mean!   ...wait, ...guns?  
Oh sorry.

(^;'

Jim Del Vecchio
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: Denver Police Kill Another Un-Armed Person, Today!
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 18:03:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: N/I

In article <viking.715666085@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
[ ... ]
>	Guilty as charged on one or more accounts.  However, one you didn't
>note that deserves mention: the cost of filing suit to change the situations
>is out of reach for most, and just name one lawyer who will fight to repeal
>no-knock legislation for a contingency fee!  Class-action?  It's possible,
>but if we could get that many people to send money, we could vote Daffy Duck
>into the presidency or congress with a write-in campaign.

Why doesn't the "other side" seem to have this problem?  Here's a hint
from HR 2922, the proposed "Lead-Based Paint Hazard Abatement Act" (the
text of which was posted in <1992Aug4.204046.22688@cbnews.cb.att.com>):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
6         (k) CITIZENS' SUITS. --Any person may bring an ac-
7    tion against the Secretary where there is alleged a failure
8    of the Secretary to perform any act of duty under this
9    section that is not discretionary with the Secretary. The
10   court, in issuing any final order in any action brought pur-
11   suant to this subsection, may award costs of litigation (in-
12   cluding reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) to the
13   prevailing or substantially prevailing party, whenever the
14   court determines that such an award is appropriate. Noth-
15   ing in this subsection shall restrict any right that any per-
16   son (or class of persons) imay have under any statute or
17   common law.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exercise for the reader:  find an Attorney who is _not_ delighted to
sue the Government, in the expectation of being awarded "reasonable"
fees not only for their own time, but for all the "expert" witnesses
they can find, given only that they "substantially prevail" in court.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns