HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bf469@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Twila Oxley Price)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Second amendment and the RKBA
Date: 10 Oct 1992 18:02:08 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bf469@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Twila Oxley Price)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu



Websters Unabridged dictionary
Army - A collection or body of men armed for war and organized
into companies, regiments, divisions, etc...

Militia - A body of citizens regularly enrolled and trained
to military exercises. In the United States, the entire body of
citizens liable to be called upon to do military duty.

Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 311, states the militia consists
of all able-bodied men between the ages of 17 and 45, both
citizens and those who have declared their intent to become
citizens, and all female officers of the National Guard.

32 USCS 109 authorizes States in peacetime to establish state
defense forces in addition to the National Guard.

32 USCS 313 adds as members of the militia those persons under 
64 who are former members of the military.

The U.S. Supreme court said in U.S. vs. Miller that militia members 
when called upon to serve, were expected to appear bearing arms
supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Thus, I, as a member of the militia, am expected to be able to 
appear at any time I may be called to serve with the appropriate
firearm.  This may be anything currently issued to the military
or in civilian use of the same caliber.
	The second amendment was established to give the 
citizen the ability to defend himself and his country, his
neighbors, and his family from any threat within and without.
	And yes, I firmly believe that this includes fully
automatic weapons, but not area weapons or weapons of destruction
beyond visual range.  I also believe we shouldbe able to carry 
these weapons openly if we have no criminal record or intent,
and that this is the only protection we have for all our other
rights.  
	I offer as "proof" the following statement from a "
"liberal" following the murder of a local doctor by a patient
upset over treatment.
	"All members of the NRA should be taken out and shot."
"and if it will save lives, repeal the bill of rights."
	This is rather extreme even for a liberal, but it points
to the fundamental difference between those who want freedom and
those who want something else.


Bruce (who borrowed my account, so blame him! Smile)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth)
Subject: Re: NRA ratings, party affiliation, and voting strategy 
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:39:58 GMT

In <1992Oct13.193707.18004@guinness.idbsu.edu> betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz) writes:

>drew

>p.s. its refreshing to have left ohio - land of the perennial
>"F" candidates Howard "I just want those guns!" Metzenbomb and
>John "I left my common sense in outer space" Glenn.  here its
>"gee, do i vote for this pro-gun candidate or that pro-gun
>candidate???" 
>--
>betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
>*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***

Just wondering, how low is Idaho's murder rate and violent
crime rate? 

Hmm, Anti-gun candidates in areas with high murder rates (Washington d.c.,
New York, Chicago...) that go up with the election of anti-gun politicians, 
and pro-gun candidates in areas with low crime rates. 
HCI-logic would mean that anti-gun candidates cause high crime rates !;-)

No?


-- 
Greg Booth BSc                    |     /_________________________
BCAA-PCDHF-BCWF-NFA-NRA-IPSC-BCFSS|@====|_________________________>
Motorola Mobile Data Division     |     \
booth@mdd.comm.mot.com cgb003@email.comm.mot.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Re: My response to newspaper bias - Part I
Date: 07 Oct 92 16:58:13 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030) writes:
>
  [discussing his local newspaper]
>
>before receiving a permit to purchase a handgun). The N&D reports every week 
>the names and addresses of the people that receive permits from the county 
>sheriff. So I know they have access to that information. 

It sure is nice of the local newspaper to provide the criminal
community with a shopping list of homes in which they can find
guns to steal.  And giving them the name of the people who live
there is even better -- they can get the phone number and call
ahead to make sure nobody's home.

I love it when the media behaves responsibly.

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Police a greater threat than "criminals"?
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:00:43 GMT
Organization: "Well, a head on top, an arm on each side, two legs...."

Well, what with all the talk about Marshall selecting a group that would
bias the statistics in *his* book, and, of course, our favorite 43:1
ratio from flawed premises, I thought of one that might be interesting:

Define a group, such that the "danger" from police is greater than the
danger from "criminals".  What a fun statistic *that* would be.  Aside
from a desire that the group so defined would include "non-criminal"
in it's selection criteria, that's about all the restrictions I can think
of.

The difficulty, as I see it, is coming up with good sources and definitions
of negative activity by police.  The DOJ stats on crime are easy, but where
to find stats on police?  And what should we include in "danger from 
police?"

Gotta admit, though, it'd be fun to be able to say something like: "For
baby-boomers, living in neighborhoods with an average household income
above 25,000, the danger of great bodily injury or death is 17 times
greater from the police than from criminals." 
 


-- 
Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
Hi!  I'm a shareware signature!  Send $5 if you use me, send $10 for manual!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:21791 alt.conspiracy:11017 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4996 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6371
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Moving right along...
Date: 7 Oct 92 05:26:32 GMT
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy,drieux@wetware.com,alt.fan.dan-quayle,drieux@wetware.com,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: na
Organization: Rice University

In article <1992Oct6.201723.9781@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
- 
- ciao
- drieux
- 
- ps: but I guess that is not really a worthwhile topic...
- especially as Dear Old Dan is really such a good guy....
- 
     You've hit the nail on the head.  Or glans if you prefer.  

     Later drieux  

-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  "From each according to his naivete, 
  kossack@qvi.com  |   to each according to his greed"  
  +1 713 240 2073  |                         -- Jeff Orrok   
  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Privileges and Rights. (was: Re: GORE...)
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:44:42 GMT

In article <lairdb.718315415@crash>, lairdb@crash.cts.com
(Laird P. Broadfield) writes:

> In <1+bp!-p@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
> >lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes:
> >It is this entity that we have allowed to grow out of control to 
> >pass things like the 55 mph speed limit and gun control laws.
> 
> The key point being: "we have allowed".  

Point well taken.  

> Yes, BUT.  Under the citizen-shareholder concept, we are regulating your
> activity on common property; you are welcome to exercise your right to
> your heart's content on your own property.

Ah, but you must be careful here!  Suppose I tell you that you have the
right to speak, but only on *your own property*!  Now you cannot set up
a soap box, and expound your views to the enlightenment of the public.
You cannot distribute your papers beyond the boundry of your property.

You have a right to a Jury trial, but only if you are not on public
property...  You have protection against "searches and seizures",
but not when you travel on public property...  (this may already be
happening...; That your protections against searche and seizure are
claimed to be invalid, because you're on public property).

Here, you begin to tread dangerous ground.

> capitalist de jure system, just brings us individual citizens
> closer to either fleeing (where to?) or to the second and third boxes.

Or the 4th box... (the first 3 are Ballot, Soap, and Jury).

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
From: cc697@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Eric Oppen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Freaks And Self-Defense
Date: 15 Oct 1992 08:30:08 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: cc697@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Eric Oppen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, ctdonath@rodan.syr.EDU (Carl T. Donath) says:

>Wasn't there a case recently where some freak started shooting in a 
>restaurant, and someone shot back, preventing another mass execution
>(the type that the media loves)?

I believe that it was in Anniston, Alabama.  I don't know the details, but
apparently several people in the restaurant were legally carrying firearms,
and the nut died the death all such nuts should die.
-- 
We can fire politicians precisely because we can fire guns.  In the Second
Amendment, the word "people" means the same thing that it does in all the
other amendments.  We, the People of the United States, ARE the militia. 
Check the US Code on this if you don't believe me.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: NSW homicides
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 14:45:09 GMT
Organization: N/I

In article <LAMBERT.92Oct13161953@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au> lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
>>>>>> On Wed, 7 Oct 92 21:38:03 GMT, meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) said:
>
>> I recall from my Numerical Analysis days that the least-squares
>> equations are ill-conditioned, and their condition gets rapidly worse as
>> the number of parameters increases.  "Ill-conditioned" means that the
>> inverse matrix maps small changes in the problem into large changes in
>> the solution.  How do we know that Tim's results are not entirely due to
>> this amplification of floating point representation error in his data?
>
>The two parameters are:
>a = (homicide rate before gun control)
>b = (homicide rate after gun control)
>
>and the least-squares equations are:
>11*a = 25.6
>10*b = 14.9
>
>doesn't look ill-conditioned to me.

I meant the reference to 19 parameters.  Sorry for the confusion.
From: larryd@stein.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Organization: University of Washington
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:00:37 GMT

cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Focused on Infinity) writes:

>>For those that appreciate irony...Wilson was reelected in 1916 on the
>>platform "He kept us out of war."  Being a lame duck, he renounced this
>>position in 1917.
>Um... Wilson wasn't a lame duck yet. The two-term limit was not imposed
>until after Roosevelt. 

This is true.  However, there was quite a political upheaval when
Roosevelt decided to go for three as it was one of the unwritten
rules of politics that no one serve more than two terms in the
presidency.  This unwritten agreement was observed by all for the 
first 140 years of the republic...until "King" Roosevelt.  


The two term amendment was sort of a sour grapes thing by the 
Republicans to prevent another reoccurance.  I guess it never
occured to them that they might actually have a president popular
enough to go for more than two terms :).

---
Larry

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula)
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 11:47:03 GMT

In article <16879124C2.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>
>     I believe the whole point was to have a relatively stable system of
>government by making amendment difficult.  This purpose is defeated if
>interpretation can basically change the meaning.  The idea was not to
>amend the Constitution "wheneve somebody disagreed" but only to amend
>it in extreme cases.  The Constitution was *designed* to be difficult to
>change.
>

I would go further and hazard a *guess* (since they're not around to
ask and I've seen no direct quotations on this point as yet) that the
founding fathers never envisioned in their wildest dreams that
anyone would propose repealing any of the first ten Amendments
to the Constitution.  I also tend to believe that the Founding
Fathers worded the first ten in such a way that they were intended
to be read and comprehended by the *average* person with no
extensive need for Judicial interpretation. 
-- 
==========================================================================
              Disclaimer: These are my views, not the U's

        "If it's in the paper it must be true!" --- D. Doright
From: cecchini@acsu.buffalo.edu (Julie A Cecchini)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The true defense of gun ownership
Keywords: Guns,Constitution,Militia
Date: 15 Oct 92 01:43:55 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <9kmd4bv@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>In article <Bw1KI0.Bv6@rice.edu> kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack) writes:
>>In article <Bw0CBq.5vH@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com writes:
>>> However, I am distressed by the willful misunderstanding of the second
>>> ammendment to the U.S. Constitution. This ammendment is about militias,
>>> not private gun ownership.
>>
>>	Pardon me, but who in tarnation do you think makes up the  
>>   militia?
>
>The amendment says "A well-regulated militia ..."
>		      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>The numbskull who buys a gun and leaves it around, fully loaded, where his
>3-year-old grandson can find it and kill his 2-year-old brother with it, is
>*not* part of a well-regulated militia.  Nor is a bunch of good ol' boys who
>drive around in a pickup every other weekend drinking beer and shooting at
>deer out of the pickup's windows a well-regulated militia.  The only legal
>well-regulated militia in this country that I know of is the National Guard.
>If you all know of other legal well-regulated militias in the U.S. I wish
>you'd stop maundering and name a couple.

Your numbskull and your "good ol' boys" are the exception, much like
the drunken driver or the violent criminal, but the numbskull and the
"good ol' boys" are very rare relative to the drunken driver and the
criminal.

P.S.  The National Guard isn't a militia.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Re: Vote 92'
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:10:28 GMT

(Bill Vojak) writes:
> Isn't it great!  Here in Colorado we have the choice between
> (R) Considine NRA 'B',  and (D) Cambell NRA 'A'.  Campbell beat
> several strongly ANTI-GUN Democrats for the slot on his ticket,

good to hear!  

> I also heard that the (D) offering for Senate in IL. is in deep 
> trouble after it was discovered that she participated in "welfare" 
> fraud, failure to report income to the IRS, "loans" from her campaign
> fund, and some questionable consulting fees.  I don't know how
> her (R) opponent is rated, but he can't be any worse than her. She
> is a typical "Chicago" politico type.  However in Chicago, being
> a crook might help her get elected!  While I'm 90% sure Clinton

hey, do you mean the media darling, carol mosely braun (sp?)???
wow!!!  talk about timely revelations!  her opponent is NRA A rated
i think.  just imagine if c(r)ook county sent a pro-gun senator
to washington!  it makes me grin just thinking about it!

> will win, I'm hoping that we do get a Congress that will prevent
> him from gutting the 2nd.  My NRA voting guide is going into the
> booth with me!

well, i think the NRA's assuming the worst and guessing that
slick will win (see the current AR cover).  but loading congress up
with pro-gunners sure can't do us any harm!

drew 
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA1460008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing army?
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:32:18 GMT

In article <85117@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:

>In article 71221@hydra.gatech.EDU, gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox) 
writes:>>In <84952@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,
snake) writes:>>

>>There is no government regulation of such free speech. You can be held 
>>liable if your actions cause harm to others, but this is totally separate 
>>from the free speech issue. The accuser must prove you did so with full 
>>knowledge there was no fire and with malicious intent. Regulating free 
>>speech itself would come under the heading of prior restraint and is a 
>>Bad Thing (tm).
>
>When you pass a law outlawing such behavior it is a kind of prior restraint.

     There is a difference between "If you do this we will lock you up,"
and "We will lock you up because you are capable of doing this."  The second
requires simple capability to do a crime, while the first requires the crime 
actually be commited.

>And those who argue that flag burning is not free speech also argue that it
>causes emotional harm to people, not to mention a fire hazard.   If you 
>don't like the "shout" example, there are plenty of others.  You are simply 
>trying to avoid the point, which is that there is no such thing as an 
>"absolute" right in our society.  

     Which generally translates into "There is not any limit to the 
restriction we may put on your rights because they are not absolute."

>The government can and does regulate 
>speech.  

     The government can and does regulate a lot of things it shouldn't.
That's a big problem with precedent law, in that "We got away with it once,
therefore it's legal."

>The courts get to define what counts as "political speech," even 
>though the First does not use that wording.

     And it's a damn shame we let them get away with it.
     
     Doesn't their creative interpretation (I mean, using words that don't 
even appear anywhere in the ext) *bother* you?

>  It would be quite impossible 
>to use the Constitution if the courts did not extrapolate meaning in this 
>way.

     It also renders the words meaningless.  If the Constitution does not
have independent meaning *WHY BOTHER TO HAVE ONE IN THE FIRST PLACE?*

>Packing the Court 
>with anti-abortionists was the Reagan-Bush strategy for removing a right 
>that women currently possess.

     Does the idea of five people in this country being able to say "This is 
now a right," and "this now isn't," bother you?  It seems a slim thread to 
hang your rights on today's "modern interpretation" of a the Constitution.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Leonard Levy, "Original Intent", etc.
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:38:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.151900.1173@unislc.uucp> jdw@unislc.uucp (James Warren) writes:

>Please accept my sincerest apology.  I had just read my local newspaper
>and was not seeing straight.  (English is my only language, but I'm not
>very proficient in its use.)

Your gracious apology is accepted.


--Mike


-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Academic bias (tests)
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:47:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Twilight Zone

In article <1al498INNpsf@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb063@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher J. Crobaugh) writes:
>
>Got this from the NRA BBS...thot it interesting enuff to

>She went on to claim that the NRA is responsible for the murder rate in 
>the U.S.

	If she put this in writing, could not the NRA sue for slander, or
	must her note have been a public announcement?
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Supreme Court allows New Jersey gun seizure law
Keywords: supreme court, legal, gun control, social issues, 	state government, government
Date: 8 Oct 92 23:48:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

Whatever happened to the federal law that permitted the transport of
weapons through states like NY and NJ?
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
[.sig on vacation]
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Do guns kill their owners?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:33:13 GMT

[Summary of "43:1" study]

I just noticed (another) problem with this study: At least as far
as the study goes, the _source_ of the gun was not considered.
They looked at "homocides with guns in homes where [a] gun was kept"
but not _whose_ gun was used. Not all (presumably) were homocides
using the gun kept in the house: If the killer brought his own
gun, and shot the resident (despite the resident having a gun
available), this would have been added to the "43" side of
the ratio. That is, the frequently quoted "A gun in the home
is 43 times more likely..." isn't an accurate representation, since
the statistics aren't limited to that specific gun.

                                            Frank Crary
                                            CU Boulder
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns