HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: Black Leaders
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 15:36:14 GMT
Organization: N/I

In article <f6=rb6=@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
[ ... ]
>I have a quote from Williams that everyone should contemplate carefully:
>
>	"We can no more blame our loss of freedom on congressmen 
>	than we can prostitution on pimps.  Both simply provide broker 
>	services for their customers."

Yep.  Here's the Robert Heinlein version (from Glory Road):

        "... the common jerk, all human races, hates and fears
        all freedom, not only for his neighbors but for himself,
        and stamps it out whenever possible."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: What to do when stopped by the police
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 06:58:26 GMT

hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:

>When the police pull you over you are under arrest.  Giving them a hard
>time and/or failing to obey orders constitutes resisting arrest.

	I was under the impression that, after the Miranda ruling, the
officer had to specifically state "You are under arrest," and also read
the Miranda rights to you if indeed you are under arrest.  Any legal
scholars care to comment upon this?

	The law in many areas is that you are not resisting arrest, but
rather "interfering in official acts" or some other such bullshit.  The
result is the same -- once the cop is there and confronting you, you either
do what he says when he says to do it or you are breaking the law.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: For gun control? No not really.
Date: 22 Dec 1992 19:34:31 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <MERRITT.92Dec22092527@macro.bu.edu>, merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:

>    >My position then is I shall arm myself.
> 
> &   Go for it.
> 
> I am certainly considering it. What type of gun should I buy?

Hm.  Let's see.  Boston, right?  Well, certain inexpensive rifles are
right out, because the city of Boston considers them "assault weapons."

Handguns are right out, too, unless you want to go through the following:

1) Apply for a permit to carry.  Can't BUY a pistol without one of these.
2) Wait for your background check to clear the Public Safety office.
3) Take an approved gun safety and laws course.  Takes six to eight weeks.
4) Have your fingerprints taken and sent to the Public Safety office.
5) Provide three letters of character reference from local citizens.
6) Join a bona fide gun club.  This will set you back $100-$200 yearly.
7) Pass a written test at the PD.
8) Pass a practical (safety and accuracy) test at the PD.
9) Provide three photos.
10) Wait for your turn at the State Bureau of Laminating Small Objects.

Then, after all this, the chief in Boston will undoubedtly stamp your 
license SPORTING AND TARGET PURPOSES ONLY.  Which means you really can't 
carry it loaded after all.  Well, that was a bust.

Looks like you're limited to buying a large, expensive rifle or shotgun.  
Hope you find that this will suit your needs for self-defense.

> I believe that the proability of being shot is too high. There must
> be an environmental change;
> 
> 1) restrict gun availability
> 2) restrict ammunition availabilty

Well, as you can see, we already did that above.  That's the CURRENT 
state of the world in Boston.  What, you aren't happy?

> 3) allow people to create communities where the *can* control
>    guns and their use.

> Infact all I ask is to join with others who think as
> I do and create a sane and safe enviromnet.

> Dept of Physics Boston University

Oh!  I forgot to ask:  are you a student, living on campus?

If so, forget about even the large, expensive guns.  You can't own any
guns or ammunition AT ALL.  That's because we allowed some people (school
administrations) to "create communities where they COULD control guns and
their use."  They're called campuses, and your right to keep and bear arms 
doesn't apply on any of them, by force of Massachusetts law.

Yes, it's the very same Massachusetts law that kept Simon's Rock College 
of Bard such a "sane and safe environment."

Feel safer now?
-- 

cdt@rocket.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: dfh@dwroll.att.com (D461-David_F_Haertig(Dave)83040)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Flashlight bans discussusions in Detriot  (and you wants guns?)
Date: 22 Dec 92 18:08:20 GMT
Reply-To: dfh@dwroll.att.com
Distribution: usa
Originator: dfh@dwroll

>>The trial of four police officers who beat motorist Malice Green
>>to death with MAG-LITE-type flashlights is going on in Detroit right
>>now.  There has been some discussion of regulating such flashlights here.

Has anyone heard of a case where someone was beaten with a MAG-LITE
wielded by anyone *other* than a police officer?  Or are we just
talking about regulating these things amongst the police force? (right!)

Dave Haertig
haertig@att.com
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Thursday, 31 Dec 1992 17:03:43 MST
From: Shooting Club at ASU <GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject:    "Ethics" Courses, etc. & the R.T.K.B.A


We asked all our E-Mail I.D'd Philosophy Dept. faculty what they thought
about orienting a discussion in their Ethics class to the Right to Keep
and Bear Arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

We received a single response:

 "There are two sets of issues surrounding the r.t.k.b.a.  One set has to
 do with the content and status of the second ammendment; what is
 protected?, why is the constitution (or law for that matter) important?,
 is it wrong to undermine support for rights protected by the constitution?,
 etc.  In philosophy, these questions fall under the description, "philosophy
 of law."  We have courses in philosophy which deal with general questions
 about the law and the constitution - but are unlikely to take up the second
 amendment specifically unless you can talk a professor into it.  The philos-
 ophy of law classes are usually taught by Professors X, Y or Z. (aliases)
 Given that these three have a stronger interest in the philosophy
 of law than I do, it is unlikely that I will teach this subject.

 The second set of issues surrounding the r.t.k.b.a. is more directly
 ethical or political in nature.  One might ask whether people should
 keep arms or should be permitted to keep arms or should have the right
 to keep and bear arms.  Here, we ignore questions steming from the fact
 that there is a second amendment; we ignore questions about what the
 second amendment means and about the status of the constitution, etc.
 This second set of questions might be appropriate for a political
 philosophy class or an applied ethics class.  I (and others) do teach
 these classes.  And it might be possible to talk me into taking up
 this topic.  We would have to talk about it and I would have to give
 it some thought.

 I hope this information is of some help to you."

 Professor W.

Has anyone else tried a different tact in eliciting interest in the
Second Amendment ?   We are amazed at the indifference
with which the Second Amendment is held here at ASU.  We are not talking
about international students, but incoming ex high-school seniors who
supposedly had a 'Civics' class in their junior or senior year.

How are college level students learning firearm marksmanship, safety
and basic Constitutional issues like this at your schools ?
From: rdrob@med.unc.edu (Ricky Roberson)
Subject: Traveling with a gun
Originator: rdrob@cahaba
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:32:50 GMT

Hi folks!  Just ran across this group, and hope I can find some help here.
Can anyone tell me the *current* laws concerning carrying a weapon in a
vehicle.  Does it vary from state to state?  I know it can't be concealed,
but does it have to be registered?  Could you borrow your friend's gun and
carry it on the seat next to you?  I'm going on a trip soon, and plan on
carrying a handgun for personal protection.  I'll be traveling through
several states.  

Any help would be appreciated.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: Toy guns
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 23:47:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.212607.9287@linus.mitre.org>, jon@cyclone.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum) writes:
|> 
|> I am essentially a civil libertarian with anarchistic leanings so my
|> stance on weapons should be pretty easy to figure out.  However, I
|> feel that toy weapons are not a good thing.  Many of my friends are
|> surprized by this and perhaps rightfully so.  But they are even more
|> amazed when I tell them that I would prefer to give a youth a real
|> weapon (with the proper attention to maturity, training, etc.).
|> 
|> How say you all?
|> -- 
|> <jon@mitre.org>|--24HR Libertarian Party News (900)454-2378 [$1.95 a minute]--
|> ----------------------------------| Libertarian Party            (800)272-1776 
|>           DON'T BLAME ME!         | 1528 Pennsylvania Avenue SE  (202)543-1988
|>        I voted Libertarian.       | Washington, DC 20003         (800)682-1776  

I agree. I don't think that toy guns are a good idea for children. They
could be started with pellet pistols (or even water pistols) but they
should be taught to treat them as real weapons. They can be given
more powerful weapons as the demonstrate maturity. However I do not
approve of any regulations against toy guns. A bad idea yes but there
is no justification for forcing this judgement on others.

				mike
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: TIME is on the ropes, asks for forgiveness
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:22:23 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
Keywords: TIME, pleading
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <viking.725705367@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>	I recieved a phone call this evening.  It was a telemarketing
>ploy from Time, Inc.  They wanted me to renew my subscription, since
>I was a "preferred customer" and all that rot.  I told the guy that I
>was not interested in Time Magazine until they reversed their anti-
>Second Amendment policy and reported the news alone instead of
>manufacturing it.  I figured I could hang up in about two seconds.

>	Instead the guy on the phone read my letter to Time, Inc to
>       me, 

You mean you had previously written this letter to the editor, and the
sales guy had a copy? If so, it would mean they at least noticed your
letter. 

>interjecting how Time, Inc has been the subject of major thrashing
>on these and other points, and how the latest board meeting has
>determined that the purpose of the magazine is to make money, not to
>promote any specific viewpoint.  It was quite convincing.

Salescritters make their living by being convincing. He makes a commission
on every subscription he sells, so I would assume that he's telling me what
the thinks I want to hear. I would have said, "I'd like to see this new
policy published in Time magazine. Then I'll change my mind."
...
>	For $0.60/issue, Time can barely afford to print the magazine.

They don't make their money on what you pay for your subscription--they
make it on advertising. Advertising rates are based on the circulation of
the magazine; thus by subscribing, you allow them to make more money from
their ads.

I hope you're right--I'm just real skeptical of Time Warner. The gun issue
is not the only bone I have to pick with them.
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Fight the bastards (was Re: Dressed for Rape)
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 19:27:24 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

miles@ms.uky.edu (Lee Crafton) writes:

>	I would continue the fight if I knew I could pay the bills.
>	I have copies of Form 4s signed by our Cheif durring the same time
>	period that ours were rejected (in writting via certified mail).
>	If this isn't a violation of my civil-rights, what is?
>        My lawyer is pro-RKBA. He shoots in competition, races cars, and was 
>	reccomended by a Professor in the UK Law department (who owns Class
>	III firearms). He is not afraid to bump heads with the establishment.
>	I am considering resubmitting this case to the NRA along with all the
>	relevant data. Can anyone tell me the name of a particular person at
>	the NRA who will actually read and consider the facts? Is it that
>	the NRA looks at Class III issues the way many "hunters" used to
>	(and still do) view semi-autos?                       
>	(we have ours, who cares about theirs?)                          
>	If I could afford it, I'd stick it in their ass!

You can forget the NRA.  They'll do little that will ever endanger their
little niche of target shooting and hunting.  I would recommend
talking with the Second Amendment Foundation.  They may not have the 
resources to fund such a suit but they'll be able to help you set it
up.

Seems to me what you need to do if you are serious about this is:

*	Set up a defense trust fund.
*	Advertise said fund and solicit donations.
*	When you have enough money to proceed, file the suit.  If you 
	never get enough, the fund should be set up so the balance
	goes to SAF or other hard-line 2nd amendment organization.

If you do the above, you'll get money from me.  You should be able to
get discounted ad space in some of the gun magazines in which to
advertise your case.  If your attorney really cares about the 2nd 
Amendment, he will work for a discounted fee.  If not, ask SAF if
they can recommend an area lawyer.  

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)
Subject: Re: Bad cops - a perfect example
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:26:16 GMT

>>We hold commercial airplane pilots to a higher standard of alcohol ingestion
>                                         ^^^^^^
>Nope, I don't think so.  The level or standard they are held to, if anything,
>is lowere tahn most states presumptive level of blood alcohol for intoxication.
>

Commercial pilots may not drink ANY alcohol for 24 hours prior to flight time.
A low BAC level is NOT a defense against violagint this 24 hour rule, if it 
can be a pilot was drinking in this time frame.
From: matwesx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (William E. Sadler)
Subject: Re: Downside to FFL?
Organization: Georgia State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 04:46:59 GMT

jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:

>Your interpretation works for the person who owns a gun store.  His 
>personal, at home collection is separate from his store inventory and
>may be handled like any other private collection.  HOWEVER, this does
>not apply to a home "store" FFL holder since the entire facility is
>considered to be the "store" for BATF purposes.  

John,
I believe that you can delineate where your store is.  The example in the
redbook says that BATF can enter the public areas of the house IF they HAVE
to to get to the dealing area.  I keep my gunsafe in the Garage, and whenever
I sell to individuals I do so in the garage, all records and business stuff
is in the garage.  I have a seperate gun safe in the house for personal
equipment.

I'm hoping this is ok.  I mostly sell at the local gun shows, not from my house
and the only thing I do is maintain inventory, records, and other business
tools and such in the garage.  The only time BATF has ever looked at my records,they did not request to enter the living area of my house.

They investigated because a gun I sold was used in a crime after being reported
stolen, they wanted to confirm the 4473.  No prob, they called, asked, and we 
set up a time.  No huhu.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 William E. Sadler          |       Internet : matwesx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu
 Ga State University        |                : acmwes@gsusgi2.gsu.edu
 M.S. Computer Science      |   Internet/CI$ : 71005.1241@compuserve.com
                            |            CI$ : 71005,1241
 (404) 413-1957             | Public Keys    : by request or
                            | RIPEM, PGP 2.0 : finger matwesx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Gun Control generally (from Knee Jerks
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 22:13:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.173600.21055@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.154609.19823@aston.ac.uk> priceje@cs.aston.ac.uk writes:
>>
>>I don't think a discussion on the war record of the US is particularly constructive
>>here do you??
>
>We've won 7, tied 1, and lost 2. It's not a perfect record, but it's
>pretty good. Care to compare?
Lost 2 wars?  I know about Vietnam, but what was the second one?

Simon

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Fight the bastards (was Re: Dressed for Rape)
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 00:41:36 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:

>  I have what my lawyer called an "clear case", but I can't afford to 
>  pursue it. For over a year I contacted pro-RKBA people for help. And all
>  I got was a bunch of lip-service (some useful, most not).
>  Anyone with lots of money want to finance a sure-win case against Class III
>  signiture discrinination in Lexington Ky.? 

First I'd heard of your case.  You still interested in fighting the fight?
I can't finance the whole thing right now but I would contribute to
the cause.  I think a number of other gun rights activists in this
group would too.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
From: dstine@cisco.com (David Stine)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 3 Jan 1993 08:16:19 GMT
Organization: 9th Flying Pig Combat Squadron
NNTP-Posting-Host: glare.cisco.com

In article <9301021331.43@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.194342.14590@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>>rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>
>>>What percentage of California residents over 18 carry legally licensed
>>>handguns?  You're speculating.
>>
>>	Close to zero.  You almost have to be a cop in that state, 
>>if I understand correctly.

Not so. CCW permits are issued on a by-county basis. In the urban counties, it
can be quite difficult to get a CCW. However, in the more rural counties, it
is often quite easy, with thousands of people per county being current CCW
holders in some of the northern and northeastern counties. In these rural
counties, thousands of people holding a CCW amounts to a significant
percentage of the county population.

Oh, and by the way: last I knew, a permit issued in any county is valid
state-wide. (someone please correct me on this if this is no longer the case)

>So there seems to be little information on what would happen if everyone
>in California over the age of 18 was issued a gun.

I can't seem to recall anywhere in this thread where anyone was suggesting
that "everyone be issued a gun." The discussion was over the ability to get a
permit to carry a weapon at _your_ discretion, not some sort of state mandated
issuance of weapons or the permits to carry same.

>I believe that it would be a catastrophe.

And here we have a shining example of the the central fault with the thought
processes of people who are proponents of "gun control."[1] Lacking any hard
statistical evidence to support their theories and proposed legislation, they
fall back on "belief" and alarmist hand-waving (eg: isn't the word
"catastrophe" usually used to describe earthquakes, floods and other incidents
of mass destruction?) to fund their arguments.

[1] Let us also consider for a moment the absurdity of the term "gun control."
The laws that are proposed/passed under the guise of "gun control" cannot
control guns. Guns, like so many other inanimate objects that are used as
weapons (cars, knives, chainsaws) have no regard for laws. Why? Because they
have no mind of their own. Lacking any volition, cognition or thought
processes, they can only do the bidding of the human who controls them. The
penalties specified by these "gun control" laws seem to recognise this
oft-ignored fact; they meet out penalties to the _person_ who owns or controls
the weapon rather than the weapon itself. But yet they are called "gun
control" laws... displaying yet more intellectual dishonesty and illogical
twaddle on the part of those who espouse such things. If the thought process
which coined the term "gun control" were logical, we wouldn't have "motor
vehicle codes", we would have "automobile control laws."

dsa
From: larryd@stein.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.drugs,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: The basic problem with anti-gun nuts.
Date: 24 Dec 92 08:14:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Dec24.081419.8372
Organization: University of Washington

bz269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James D. Del Vecchio) writes:


>   What studies have been done on the correlation between racial/ethnic 
>integration and crime?   It might seem that people would be more willing
>to perpetrate crimes on "outsiders" to their ethnic group than on people
>they identify with more.   Given this, a region or area with more of a mix
>might have more crime than otherwise.

I have read that crime is generally perpetrated within the ethnic group.
The only EEO crime is armed robbery.

--
Larry
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns