HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 06:34:00 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

aj336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Pat Weber) writes:

>I don't get the connection...if the woman had been armed would this
>confrontation end otherwise? Even if she held off the cops, they'd
>get the battering ram and kill her and her kids too. I've said this a
>dozen times - gun ownership does not stop police/govt abuse of its
>citizens.

A woman whose first instincts were to gather her kids up would probably
not have been saved by a weapon.  On the other hand, had her first instincts
been to grab her AR-15 or MAC-10 and machine-gun them as they came 
through the door, she might have survived and even if she didn't,
her actions would damn sure made the pigs a bit less ready to storm the
next house.

The pigs are like playground bullys.  They don't pick on the hardened
criminals.  The slither in like thieves in the night, knowing that
the system will protect them from the consequences of almost action.

No, one single person cannot make much difference.  But when it comes
to the point - as it almost must if things continue the 
way they are - where citizen-snipers protect their neighboors from
roving gangs of pigs, where pigs are dropped in their tracks as they
attack, we may be able to force change.  Or at least kill a bunch of
thugs.

What's the alternative?  I don't see one.  I see little that I can do
within the system to force the thugs in blue back in line.   As long as
we allow the politicians  and the pigs to frame police confrontations
as good vs evil, we're going to lose.  After all, in the eyes of the 
pigs, we are all either evil or potentially evil.  

>Please don't quote the US revolution to me - this was an external
>army occupying another country.

Why don't you note the part of the Declaration of Independence about 
the dangers of a standing army, and note the language in the Constitution
that trys to protect us from it.  remember an occupying force does not
have to wear OD green fatigues.  Blue and chrome will do just fine.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:38:02 GMT

 PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:

>In article <viking.714114918@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>>	This I did not reference in my previous post, and I feel I need
>>to explain myself.  I think the police and the military have similar roles
>>outside of full-blown wars of conquest.  Both are military organizations,
>>and follow a chain of command that insulates the lowest, but puts the
>>responsibility on the highest.  

>     Should the police *really* be a military organization?  Doesn't that
>say something about the way things are going?
> 
>     Shouldn't the police just be civilians working for the government?
>Should we really consider them to be "different" than ordinary mortals,
>and as such not answerable to the same laws?

	I think the police have to be this way, simply because they are
continually faced with hostile, armed opposition.  Look at it this way:
The county clerk is not required to arrest a felon, but the street cop
is.  That felon, at times, is an armed and dangerous person, and thus
military tactics and organization are required when facing a hostile
enemy.  The only way I can see around this is to remove the criminals,
which as we all know isn't a practical thing to do.  I think they
should be governed by the same laws, of course, but I do make some
minor exceptions.  For example, one should not give an officer in
high-speed pursuit a speeding ticket.  In the same vein, any time an
officer violates the laws they should be brought to task for it.  I
only make exceptions where the violation of a law is in order to
enforce a law with a greater potential to affect the public, but as
I understand it ordinary civilians can do this as well.

>     Maybe we should take a good long look at the way the police work:  
>maybe they shouldn't work like they do.

	They shouldn't _have_ to, but the days of the possee and the
sheriff deputizing a band of armed men at the saloon to get Pecos Bill
are long gone, and citizens are no longer as active in enforcing the
law.  Thus, it falls on the police to enforce the laws alone, and given
the opposition they can be expected to face, I cannot help but feel that
the present organization is what is necessary.  That doesn't mean I like
it, or that I agree with all of their procedures, but I can think of
no method of changing it that will me more effective in crime control.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jsemrad@ems.cdc.com (Joe Semrad)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Jacklighting (was PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act...)
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:38:00 GMT
Reply-To: jsemrad@ems.cdc.com
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Distribution: usa
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of CDC

In article <1992Aug19.011514.883@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:
|> 
|> Rob U, is jacklighting an ethical hunting practice?
|> 

Rob, exactly what is "jacklighting"?  I'm gonna guess it means taking deer
at night by freezing them in a spotlight.  If I'm correct, the regional term
for it in Minnesota is "shining" deer.

Shining is not only unethical but very illegal, at least around here.  I
believe you can be arrested just for shining a light across a field at night
whether or not you have a weapon in you posession (unless you are the 
landowner, then you can use a light for purposes other than locating deer.
You still get in trouble if you have a weapon though.)

There are certain rare exceptions, such as DNR baiting and shooting in areas
where hunting cannot be used to trim populations, and perhaps on some
Indian reservations (I think they get to set a lot of their own hunting and
fishing rules and procedures - I don't know if shining is legal for them.)

The Mn DNR has been using very lifelike deer dummies to catch people who
shine (as well as related violations such as shooting across roads, shooting
out of season, shooting from a vehicle, etc.)  They have been aggressively
pursuing these violators and the dummies help conservation officers catch
them "in the act" making for much easier convictions.  From what I've read
they ahve been quite successful in reducing such violations.

I support such activity on the part of the DNR and I suspect most other
hunters do as well.  I am pleased that a portion of my license fees go
to support this.

If, of course, jacklighting means something else, well then I guessed wrong...

Joe
All opinions mine, etc.
-- 
================================================================
= C. Joseph Semrad                  =   Phone: 612-553-4758    =
= EMPOWER Development               =   FAX:   612-553-4018    =
= Empros Systems International      =   jsemrad@ems.cdc.com    =
================================================================
=      1991 Minnesota Twins, Baseball's World Champions!       =
=           So, Jack it was the money, wasn't it?              =
================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: veal@utkux1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 22:07:27 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: leviathan.ce.utk.edu

In article <cthong.713768275@sfu.ca> cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes:

>thank you for taking time off to explain things to me from an objective point 
>of view. i see your point . laws would be difficult to enforce in an area like
>that . but to ask a last question of you - what makes you think you aren't 
>imposing YOUR points of view on others in YOUR country?

     I am not imposing my views on anyone.  I have never once asked that
others be required to own anything they don't want to own.

>are you the majority?

     The majority in the United States does not vote on other citizens
rights.  The United States is a Republic, not a Democracy.

>or just the vocal part of your country that wants to or isn't afraid to speak
>up?

     Somebody has to.

>have you asked aLL your neighbours?

     What my neighbors think is not the point.  Whether it be free speech,
religion, or the right to keep and bear arms, my rights are not theirs to
vote on or give away.

>for a country with freedom of speech , i find that any contrary opinions
>here are more subject to branding of deviance than mine...
>after all , that was part of the basis for McCarthyism weren't it ?

     You are more than welcome to shout your opinions from any hilltop or
USENET site that pleases you.  That is your right and I will not contest.
Speaking as you will, however, does not protect you from having others speak
as they will in return.  The right to tell others they are wrong goes hand in
hand with the right of others to tell you *you* are wrong.

     I have seen noone here suggest that you should not have a right to your
own opinions.  What they have objected to is you wanting to force your
opinions on what they may own on them.

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
===========================================================================
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: UFO "October Surprise" and USA TAKEOVER?!
Date: 19 Aug 92 19:35:24 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <OTTO.92Aug12155011@tukki.jyu.fi>, otto@tukki.jyu.fi (Otto J. Makela) writes:

> The fact that yearly much more people in the United States get killed by
> guns than in Europe of course has nothing to do with gun control, right ?

Any more than the fact that more than 60% of the births in Washington DC
are to single mothers has to do with birth control.
-- 

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...
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: HR-7: the Brady Bill
Date: 22 Aug 92 00:01:10 GMT
Distribution: talk
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug21142539@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

> 	Here's my copy of HR-7, courtesy of Larry Cipriani
> 	who first posted it last year. If it is not the final version
> 	as passed by the House last year, I'd appreciate
> 	an updated version.

My copy of the document is different from yours in the critical area,
and also contains at the end:

Passed the House of Representative May 8, 1991.

Attest:     DONNALD K. ANDERSON,
                                Clerk.

I suspect you need a new copy, but I cannot really know for sure.
-- 

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: J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: UFO "October Surprise" and USA TAKEOVER?!
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:00:57 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030) writes:

>  Steven one of the reasons that Europeans can have such a low crime rate
> is because they don't count anything that has a political motive (at least
> the Brits don't) that includes bombings in London, Northern Ireland....

Where did you establish this? I believe you're mistaken. Terrorists are
tried for the 'normal' crimes, ie murder. I don't see any reason why, if
the crime is defined as murder, particular murders are excluded. Please
quote your source for this assertion, or I will assume you are
incorrect.

--Jonathan
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:19546 talk.politics.animals:7233
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:52:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division

In article <PA142548.239.714228520@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:

|> Dr. Einstein built the atomic bomb with the hope of ending war.  At the 
|> time, he expected the bomb to be placed under the control of a multi-
|> national organization and used as a deterrant.
|> 
|> He was a porr student of human nature, but you cannot question his motives, 
|> as they are clearly documented.  See any biography.


Yikes! Revisionist history.

Einstein provided the basic theory that was later used to discover the principles
which were used to build the atomic bomb.  He *was not* directly involved in the
effort, so he cannot be said to have "built the bomb" in the same sense as, say,
Fermi could be.

Einstein did write a letter to Roosevelt that helped get the effort started.

-- 
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: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Jacklighting (was PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act...)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 01:28:38 GMT

In <20390@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> jsemrad@ems.cdc.com (Joe Semrad) writes:

>Rob, exactly what is "jacklighting"?  I'm gonna guess it means taking deer
>at night by freezing them in a spotlight.  If I'm correct, the regional term
>for it in Minnesota is "shining" deer.

>Shining is not only unethical but very illegal, at least around here.  I
>believe you can be arrested just for shining a light across a field at night
>whether or not you have a weapon in you posession (unless you are the 
>landowner, then you can use a light for purposes other than locating deer.
>You still get in trouble if you have a weapon though.)

	I agree with everything said here, but I'd like to add that in Iowa
you can only use a spotlight in conjunction with a firearm if you are
hunting racoon's with dogs.  If you don't have a dog, you don't get to use
the light.  The idea here is to avoid shooting the dogs, but it is fairly
uncommon to find a person hunting racoon after sundown with dogs.  If
dogs were used to hunt deer I suspect a similar law would be passed, but
spotlighting is certainly illegal otherwise.  And I'm all for that law.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Re: ACLU's "Campaign for the Bill of Rights '92"
Date: 10 Aug 92 23:02:52 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
>I wonder what would happen, if the NRA threw it's weight behind Marrou.

It would further the popular perception of the NRA as a bunch of
lunatic-fringe wackos.  And Marrou would still lose.

>It doesn't seem like Clinton or Bush are going to do us any good...

Quite true.  Which is why advocates of the RKBA need to focus
intensively on congressional races this year.

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: ACLU question
Date: 14 Aug 92 03:39:53 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


Me too.
-- 
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: reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland)
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:58:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.005220.12396@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug15.235042.17830@nosc.mil> sampson@nosc.mil (Charles H. Sampson) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug13.194313.14949@cco.caltech.edu> danlip@cco.caltech.edu (Daniel Adam Lipofsky) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug13.145832.23050@nosc.mil> sampson@nosc.mil (me) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug12.161215.5552@smartstar.com> syspb@smartstar.com (Paul) writes:
>>>>              ...  Pretty soon, California may
>>>>be like England, where nobody can have a gun.  ...

Correction: No one may have a gun *legally*.  BIIIIIIIIG difference.
Do you really think the gangs will care?  Most of them get their arms
on the black market already.  Many of them already profit from this
market as well.  They'll make even more profits if guns are banned,
just as they currently do from drugs.

>>>     You mean my wife will be able to stroll in downtown L. A. at 11:00
>>>P. M. without fear?  Gosh, we had better be on our guard to prevent some-
>>>thing like that happening!

Outlawing guns in California will not make anyone except criminals
safer.  (Do you think the gangs go into gun shops and fill out the
forms??)

You wife could be safer now, if the city would allow her a permit to
carry a gun.  But only politicians can get those (and the criminals, of
course, don't seem to feel a need for them).

>>     For others for whom my first comment was too subtle, my wife can walk
>>around London at 11:00 P. M. without fear, with the exception of a few well-
>>known areas.

>BTW - Your wife can walk around LA NOW at 11pm without fear, with the
>exception of a few areas.  Whether or not she knows about them is
>another issue.

Belfast has the same strict gun laws as London.  Probably stricter, at
least in practice.  Is your (presumably English) wife equally safe
walking about that city?  If not, perphaps you are beginning to
understand that there is more to safety than laws against guns, and
that cultural differences are much more determinant of one's safety
than anything else.

=====================================================================
Reid Kneeland
reid@ttidca.tti.com  (that's MISTER reid@ttidca.tti.com to you!)
{philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,rdlvax,retix,rutgers}!ttidca!reid
Transaction Technology Inc., Santa Monica, CA, USA (310) 450-9111 x2499
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily etc etc...

Never trust a man who can count to 1,023 on his fingers.
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Keywords: peta, 800 phone numbers
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 04:19:10 GMT

[lots of great stuff about Ingrid Newkirk and other PETA folk being
 issued subpoenas deleted]

Is there anyone that the rest of us, that have not been harassed by
phone, can write to in an effort to show our support of these actions
against PETA?  What I mean is to whom can we express our feelings that
we are in full support of investigations into such illegal harassment?
Will it help for us to put pressure on the FCC or others to perform an
investigation?  My word processor is raring to go. B-)

Thanks for the info, Larry.  It really brightened up my day. :-)


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 09:23:34 GMT

In <25#nxxk@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:

>I am afraid of the police today.  I know I stand a much greater chance
>of being roughed up, stolen from or killed by a pig than by a criminal.
>I'm even more afraid of idiot citizens like Dan who appologize for any
>transgression, no matter how egregious, that the police make.

	I fear you take me for more than what I say.  First, when you
label cops as "pigs" you do quite a lot to make them less than human.
Second, I do not "apologize for any transgression" the cops may make.
Indeed, I think justice needs to be done.  Cops are human, and like it
or not they are also citizens just as you are I are.  I ask for justice,
and that means a review board and a trial if any problems are found.
The review board, of course, should consist of both police and average
citizens, and anything but a unanimous "not guilty" finding results in
a jury trial.  I just note that cops are still citizens, and deserve
and *should get* the same rights and privlidges that you and I enjoy.

	I cannot judge outside of a court, and I am just as appalled
that Tony be guilty until proven innocent as I am that you and I need
have our rights removed so that the cops can bust more bad guys (tm).

	We are all citizens, allowed the same rights and privlidges.
Let's try to remember that when I, or a cop, is lambasted by the media
and the facts are conveniently absent.  The jury box judges me, not
you at your terminal.  Similarly, I don't judge Tony at my terminal.

	Is this position really so strange?  If it is, I might
suggest the common misperceptions gun owners are subject to, and
how critics who ignore possibilities that disregard their pet
theory can speak with all the rightousness of one in total
posession of the supreme Truth.  HCI would love our treatment
of Tony, judging him when we have nothing to judge him on and
ignoring that he is still given the same rights that are
recognized for us all.  I grant there are problems with the
events that transpired, and I do not think nobody needs to answer
for those.  I balance that with Tony being railroaded by armchair
posters who don't know the facts and (sadly) will never know
them all.  Justice has not been served, yet reading the posts
in response to me I see that many don't care about justice, but
only that which makes them feel good.  If you claim Tony is
guilty of murder without the facts, is it any wonder that HCI
claims "assault rifles" are a problem without any proof?

	If you take the rights of the (now dead) woman above the
rights of Tony, how are you capable of deciding the guilt or
innocenet of each?   Last I read, it was an "impartial" jury
that was to decide these things.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns