HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dont@execu.execu.com (Don Thompson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Summary: Take back control!
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:17:09 GMT
Organization: Austin Dev. Center, Comshare Inc.


 #Hey, my taxes are already high enough!  This got my attention without me
#being fined.  Who the hell do you think the 'government' around here is?
#I agree that family needs to be taken care of. I have no problem
#with that.

#On the other hand where does the blame lie?  At a first approximation
#I'd say with the police official that ordered that kind of a raid, with
#the DA who requested the warrant on such flimsy evidence, and the Judge
#that issued it. If anybody needs to pay punitive damages, it is them.

#Unfortunately, judges aren't really accountable, the DA isn't directly
#responsible and the police are just going to say it's an unfortunate
#mistake.  Sure maybe SOME people will remember at election time, but I
#doubt many of us will.  We'll just remember that poor officer.
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Which is why there should be MASSIVE punitive damages. 

Since you seem to be saying that none of the above government
entities can or will be held responsible, then the responsibility 
must rest solely with the taxpayer. Then perhaps MOST of the you will 
remember come election time because you'll take the bus to the polls 
because you can't afford a car because your taxes went up x hundred 
percent to pay the damages.

If the government is authorized by the people, run with the people's money,
and representative of the people, then the people are ultimately responsible for
the governments actions. When the Government gets out of control then it is 
the peoples responsibility to take back control. 

Which gives me an opportunity to point out to the Brady bunch groupies that
there are only two methods, vote'em out or blow'em out. When the first 
doesn't work, there's always the Second.

( I think I've stumbled onto a new signature! )
-- 
________________________________________________________________________________
Don Thompson                        |   I may be opinionated, but at least
Comshare Inc. dont@execu.execu.com  |   my opinions are my own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: maarrrk@seidel.ucsb.edu (Mark Erickson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Semiauto Registration Enforcement?
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:39:35 GMT
Distribution: ca

Does anybody have any information regarding the latest in 
the Roberti-Roos saga?  Like how many people actually registered?
Or if any law enforcement people are going after unregistered
guns?  Or what happened to the rewrite?

thanks,

--maarrrk
From: dadams@cray.com (David Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Demo Gun Control & just who were the v
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:05:02 GMT
Reply-To: dadams@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.


 garyd@netcom.com (Gary Dietz) writes:
|
|Without giving away my stance on "gun control" (we do know how you
|like to generalize, Richard), think about the following scenario.
|
|Martial Bill declares himself president for life.  He orders army
|into Cupertino and says shoot to kill.
|
|What army will listen to those orders?
|

Suppose that Martial Bill is real popular (like Regan was at times,
or Bush was at the end of the Gulf war) and that strict gun control
is in place, and that over the course of his time in office, Martial
Bill has been carefully putting only his cronies in key postitions
in the military.

Do you really doubt that he could find people who "loved" him and
looked up to him, and would be willing to do what ever he called 
for?  

Well, several people in history have been able to do it, so why not?

>If the country has a firm economic footing ...

What makes you think this will always be the case?  Will there never
be another depression?  Will there never be another recession?
We vote presidents (like Bush ;^) out of office over times like these,
even if the same president would have been well liked in good times.





---
--David C. Adams  Statistician  Cray Research Inc.  dadams@cray.com
___________________________________________________________________
       member--Minnesotans for Global Warming.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dadams@cray.com (David Adams)
Subject: Re: Burglars and dogs and snakes, oh my!
Reply-To: dadams@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:48:46 CDT

 keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd) writes:

|
|No. First you let him die, then you call the cops and the ambulance.
|When someone breaks in your home, they give up certain rights.
|
|This will help ease the overloaded legal system and jails and will
|also make the next thug who fancies breaking into your home think twice.

Not!  Nowadays, instead of prosecuting a thug, they prefer to file a civil
suit against you for shooting one.  The family can get millions that way.




|
|Keith
|
|-- 
|| Keith M. Boyd  (NCR MCPD Cola.) | Nothing could be finer than huntin' and  |
|| 3325 Platt Springs Rd.          |    and fishin' in South Carolina! -Me-   | 
|| West Cola., S.C. 29170 |   GO BRAVES!!     | keith.boyd@columbiasc.NCR.COM |
|| Vp: 803-791-6419 or 6455    | From uunet: uunet!ncrcom!ncrcae!clodii!keith | 



---
--David C. Adams  Statistician  Cray Research Inc.  dadams@cray.com
___________________________________________________________________
       member--Minnesotans for Global Warming.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: bb063@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher J. Crobaugh)
Subject: Rock Island & Dalton Cases
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 11:03:30 GMT


Some thoughts on some relatively recent court cases regarding
the RKBA. Tale a look.

Has anyone out there been paying any attention to the cases "US
v Dalton and US v Rock Island Arsenal?  I read them in the last
few days, and the conclusions I come to (as a non-lawyer
interested party) is that the RIA case is a bombshell if it is
handled right. 

      I see it as stating flatly that the [federal] government has
NO "enumerated power" or constitutional basis to register guns;
any guns. It states that the only reason the government ever could
register machine guns was because it taxed them; in the absence
of any statutory taxing scheme on machine guns, the government is
powerless to regulate them! 

      Even curiouser is the fact that the government lost at the
circuit court level and appealed; then, however, the government
itself dismissed the appeal. Why? Could it be that the government
thought it would lose? That a higher court yet would agree that
the government has NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE
GUNS?

      Some of our more legally knowledgeable participants out
there might want to take a look at these two cases. There appears
to be some real substance here; why else would the feds want to
just drop the case and go no farther?
-- 
bb063@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu  Chris Crobaugh - (216) 327-6655 (V)
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little 
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: 18 Aug 92 22:52:56 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education

In article <viking.714114918@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>
>>In article <viking.714019331@vincent1.iastate.edu
>> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>
>>I agree; however, my criteria seem to differ considerably from yours.
>>If they are unfair, I can sympathize for the officer forced to operate
>>under them; however, I refuse to lower them.  I will NOT apply the
>>same rules to police officers as to soldiers under fire in a war zone,
>>in unfriendly country.  I am shocked that anyone would suggest it.
>
>	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?

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

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
===========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sampson@nosc.mil (Charles H. Sampson)
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Organization: Computer Sciences Corporation
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:10:30 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.  ...
=>>
=>>     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!
=>
=>     Try again.  My response was in the future tense, what you apparently
=>meant as a rebuttal is in the present tense.  Doesn't work.
=>
=>     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.
=
=So?  She'd have been able to do that BEFORE gun control came to the
=UK.  Thus, the comment is not too subtle, but irrelevant, unless
=you're going to argue that UK criminals are affected by laws not yet
=passed.
=
=Gun control wasn't associated with a reduction in the UK's crime or
=murder rate.

     The cascade has become a little complex, but my original comment ("...
my wife will be able to stroll ...") was in response to the claim that Cali-
fornia may soon be like England, which is apparently considered undesirable.
I didn't make that claim.  I don't think it's true, at least not the _soon_
part, but it's an issue that I'm not particularly interested in pursuing.
Gun control, like abortion, is a subject for which rational discussion is
impossible.

=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.

     So you disagree with the rebutter, whose "rebuttal" you edited out,
when he says that anyone who walks around L. A. at 11:00 P. M. is a fool?

				Charlie
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Date: 14 Aug 92 00:12:21 GMT
	<cthong.713583502@sfu.ca> <Bsw5w5.96H@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com>
	<cthong.713669756@sfu.ca>
Distribution: na
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <cthong.713669756@sfu.ca> cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes:
<   firstly- hold on -let me get a grip on myself-- heh- 
 
	Also please note that while some of the people
	on this group are from Canada, many others are from	
	the U.S.A. 

	Internet addresses that end with .ca (as Thong's) are
	from Canada. Those that do not have that ending are,
	obviously, not from Canada.

<  I AM NOT FROM THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA!!
<   SINGAPORE IS NOT , HAS NEVER BEEN , WILL EVER BE A CHINESE STATE!!
<   HEH.HEH..AHHHMMMM..
<   S"PORE IS A CULTURALLY DIVERSE ISLAND SOCIO DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
<   WITH A LAND AREA ROUGHLY THE SIZE OF GREATER VANCOUVER AND A LARGER
<   POPULATION. WE"VE HAD OUR NAME LONGER THAN YOU'VE HAD YOUR CANADIAN
<   IDENTITY. YOU'VE GOT A GREAT COUNTRY HERE BUT BRUSH UP ON YOUR GEOGRAPHY
<   MY MISINFORMED FRIEND.
 
	Please bear in mind your audience; many of us are posting
	from a 200 year old republic.

<  My views on why people would feel safer in a country where firearms 
<   are prohibited (private use) are supported by these points.
<   - i feel safer in my country because there, i can rely on the police
<    (who incidentally are not goon-squad commies as you might think..heh)
<   to keep the area safe. in the event of any incident , i know i can 
<   rely on my neighbours to look out for me as i look out for them.
<   the cops meanwhile are only a 20 second phone call away.
	
	Is that true for each and every country where firearms
	are prohibited?

<   keep your gun in your pocket? ... ha... funny.
<   you obviously watch a lot of clint eastwood movies.
 
	Actually, there are quite a few firearms which are
	easily concealed and thus can be kept in a pocket.
	Indeed, some still refer to them as "pocket pistols".
	There are also various holsters which enable one to
	have a firearm on ones' person at all times...

<  i accept points of view from all gun enthusiasts and people who feel
<   for whatever reason they NEED a gun . (protection? okay. ) 
<   you just learn to accept that as i accept your views , i don't have
<   to agree with them , and i'm only speaking as another curious human
<   being with some questions and points of his own wh feels that he isn't
<   the ONLY one in this country who shares this opinion.
<   AND KEEP MY COUNTRY OUT OF THIS UNTIL YOU GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT SIR!

	Fine. Please bear in mind that not all posters on this or
	any other group are from only one nation.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Policing Ourselves
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 18:29:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.212658.16491@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
writes:
>> I see nothing wrong with a gun safety program that issues a license that 
>> certifies that the carrier is competent to operate a firearm!  In fact, I 
>> see everything right with it.
>
>I have no problem with a voluntary program where people can learn
>to handle firearms safely.  I do have a problem with a mandatory
>program, since you can then turn a RIGHT into a PRIVILEGE.  ("Oops...
>we've just run out of safety certificates, and it's impossible to
>print any more..  Have a nice life, Sir.").
>
>So, let's have a voluntary safety program, and encourage kids to attend.
>Let's make it part of the High school curriculum...  Instructors are
>probably easy to find.  We could most likely get some NRA instructors
>to volunteer.  :-)

Or else get people to write to gun manufacturers, encouraging them to
give rebates to people who have completed a safety program.  Just keep
the government out of the equation...

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:25:51 GMT

In article <Bt75t9.B4L@cup.hp.com> runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan) writes:
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!utkcs2!darwin.sura.net!wupost!usc!sdd.hp.com!hpscdc!cupnews0.cup.hp.com!runyan
>From: runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan)
>Subject: Re: Gun control in California
>Sender: news@cupnews0.cup.hp.com
>Message-ID: <Bt75t9.B4L@cup.hp.com>
>Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:48:45 GMT
>References: <16847BBF.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu>
>Organization: HP, Cupertino, CA, USA
>X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
>Lines: 12
>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>>     Laws regarding licensing and registering of automobile only apply with
>>regard to their use on private property.  There are no laws (or very, very
>>few that never crop up) regarding the *ownership* of automobiles *or* their
>>use on private property.
>
>Well, I'll stick my neck out and claim that California requires you 
>register all cars, even those on private property.   At least, recent
>laws indicate that it is necessary to register even non-functioning
>vehicles in the state of California.

     This has been mentioned to me, and to be honest I'd never heard it
before.  I may have been mistaken.
 
     However, this is a *tax* measure, not anything intended to prevent
ownership.  Registration was, I believe originally intended to reduce auto-
theft, which it has not.
 
     I am not aware, though, of any licensing requirement to use a car on
your own property, and I would oppose that as well if there was.


===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: grant@bluemoon.rn.com (Grant DeLorean)
Subject: Re: CLINTON NEW TEXT: GUN CONTROL
Organization: Blue Moon
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 17:13:42 GMT

donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:

>Did Hillary Clinton REALLY say something to the effect that "the children
>belong to the State"?

 If the parents were married in the State of Ohio with a marriage license
the children DO belong to the state and the parents are merely caretakers
for the State. The State can do anything it chooses to the children,
including take them away at any time.
-- 
\   Grant DeLorean  - IHMSA & NRA Life Member -  (grant@bluemoon.rn.com)   /

        Tested on dolphins and assorted helpless furry creatures

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 07:18:14 GMT

I've been following this from a distance, and I'm a little confused.
It seems as though the police internal inquiry (if any) has pre-empted
any coronial inquest.  Surely in any such case the coroner would hold
an inquest and would be able to direct that the police officer concerned
stand trial or not.  There have been a number of cases recently in
Australia where police have shot and killed suspects, and each killing
has been fully investigated in a public inquest  -  in no case, BTW,
have charges been laid against the police concerned.

Geoff Miller  (ghm@adfa.oz.au)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak)
Subject: gas & soap
Originator: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:58:08 GMT

m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY) writes:

>> (Hint: mix gas and soap and your have a nasty sticky flammable
>> substance)

>Gas and coffee cups work much better.  Actually gas and anything with
>a class 4 5 or 6 recycleable symbol on it works great.

 Yeah, pretty amazing what you can learn from watching McGyver. You
 know, the "it's ok to set people on fire, toss them off roofs, use
 chemical gas, make napam, drop a ton of rocks on them, but I won't 
 use one of these evil nasty guns cause they hurt people" tv show.

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER NOT!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dadams@cray.com (David Adams)
Subject: Re: Colorado Does Its Part For Firearms La
Reply-To: dadams@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:55:59 CDT

In article 23556@hawkmoon.mn.org, gray@hawkmoon.mn.org (Bill Gray) writes:
|vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak) writes:
|
|[snip]
|
|>I will be voting for Ben for two main reasons:
|
|>1) Other issues which is agree with him more than I agree
|>   with Terry.
|
|>2) Putting a Pro-Gun Democrat into the Senate, long term
|>   will have greater benefit for gun owners. The only way
|>   to have any chance of winning this war on the second
|>   amendment is by reshaping the groups who are attacking
|>   your rights. A Pro-Gun Democrat adds one more voice to
|>   their ranks to Just Say NO to Ted Kennedy and other
|>   Democratic leader who play politics using your rights
|>   as bargining chips.
|
|By all means, vote as your conscience dictates.  But remember that
|the Senate leadership is implacably opposed to gun rights, and that they
|will be able to offer or deny support to your candidate's initiatives
|at their whim.
|
|Thus, if gun control continues to be a hot issue (likely!), your Democrat
|will be under enormous pressure form his own party to bolt.  They will
|hold his bills and his Party reelection money hostage to get their way.
|

Just wanted to add a point that Bill doesn't make very clear.  If you
would like your Pro-Gun Senator to be able to sit on any committies or
sub-commities that will influence any gun legislation, then it is
an absolute must that the majority leader feel the same way about
gun legislation!  (Nobody else has more control about who gets to
be on that committe.)  The majority leader, of course is chosen
by the party that has the majority.  If you want a majority leader
who represents you on gun-legislation it would help to get a majority
from the party that represents you most on gun-legislation.  If you
want to get a majority from the party that represents you, it would
help most to vote for a senator in that party  (Even if that candidate
is not pro-gun).  Does that make any sense?  Well it is how American
Politics works.  

On the other hand there is the slim chance that your Pro-Gun Democrat
will be chosen as majority leader, but that is not very likely, considering
that the dems already have their majority leader, etc.

|
|Oh, well.  Sensible Minnesotans (both of us! :-)  are grateful that other
|states are selecting better Senators than our prize, Paul (the Dweeb)
|Wellstone.  :-(

I don't suppose I count as "the other"?   Anyway I've been wanting to
get a hunting dog, and I was thinking of naming him, "The Senator" in
honor of our "prize".  Maybe it should be "Senator Dweeb"?  Boschwitz
was a good man.  (He must'a been "the other"?)


|Bill
|-- 
|gray@hawkmoon.mn.org
|This site gets a fair news feed, but e-mail is more reliable. . . :-(
|"Veni, vidi, vomiti!"  -- the ghost of Tom Jefferson on reading the Brady Bill

Throw the bums out!

---
--David C. Adams    dadams@cray.com
___________________________________________________________________
       member--Minnesotans for Global Warming.  ;^)