HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dennis@bluemoon.rn.com (Dennis Carney)
Subject: PROponent -- Article "SEND YOUR FAVORITE..."
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 01:29:26 EDT

SEND YOUR FAVORITE...

       Your never-resting PRO leadership has come up with yet
another money-making idea: A cookbook sale.  This is one that is
bound to be fun for all PRO members as well as making a few bucks.
       What we need are your favorite recipes that will be printed
in a PRO cookbook to be offered for sale to members and at our gun
shows. (continued on next page)
       So help out by mailing your favorite recipe to the PRO
office. Good ones might be for preparing your favorite game or
"patriotic" recipes or those for preparing historical foods or even
"joke" recipes such as "roadkill" this or that.  We are going to
need quite a few to fill a cookbook so send in as many as you can.
All your favorites are welcome even if they don't fit the above
categories.  All PRO members will be able to share your favorite
foods.  This is going to be a great grassroots way to share good
eating.
       We will keep you informed of progress as the recipes come
in. Let's hear from you.

...

This is from:
    dennis@bluemoon.rn.com
---- The Soviet Union Died, But the Communists Live On ----
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: kossack@qvi.com
Organization: The Heirs of Patrick Henry
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 03:41:38 GMT

In article <PA146008.270.715552135@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
|>      Arguing on Ninth Amendment ground might certainly be appropriate,
|> but so is arguing for the Second Amendment.   Considering it *does*
|> have all the requisite properties.  (People, arms, bear, etc.)
|> 
|>      It is, however, generally the kiss of death to try and argue for
|> something on Ninth Amendment grounds.  You will be summarily ignored.
|> It's been a long time since anybody took Amendments Nine and Ten 
|> seriously.

	Wait a cotton-pickin minute, pardner.  I thought that the 
   Roe vs. Wade decision and the Federal mandate for legal abortions 
   was based on those very amendments, specifically the so-called 
   right-to-privacy, a right that the FFs forgot to ennumerate.  

	Silly me, I thought this was talk-abortion.   :-) 


-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  Don't Miss Meals 
  kossack@qvi.com  |       Bag Your Diet
  +1 713 240 2073  |            Eat More Fast Food 
  
Newsgroups: 2,3,talk.politics.guns,fido.rtkba
From: charlie.duncan@execnet.com (charlie duncan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: the nra and prn?
Date: 13 Sep 92 04:53:09 GMT
Reply-To: "charlie duncan" <charlie.duncan@execnet.com>
Distribution: talk
Organization: Executive Networks Information



DB>Good deal about the NRA-ILA BBS coming on-line.  Is there any
DB>talk of linking the Paul Revere Network to the NRA-ILA BBS
DB>system?  Seems like a good idea to me, but I suspect that the
DB>NRA wouldn't go for it until they get sufficient registration
DB>funds so as to offset their investment in setting up the
DB>BBS system.

       The best way to get PRN and Gun Talk linked is to
  write letters to James Baker at the ILA.

       Also post here and on PRN about it.  Every post I see on
  it, I will copy and forward to the ILA.

       I know that others have mentioned this to them, so if
  enough come out in favor -- it will have a very good chance of
  happening.

       I don't see funds btw as being a limiting factor.

       Just remember you need to spell everything out to them --
  the powers that be in the NRA and the ILA really are ignorant
  [at least they *know* they are!] about BBS, software, networks
  etc. etc.

       TTFN -- Charlie
---
 ~ SLMR 2.0 #543 ~ Construe the Bill of Rights broadly or live to regret it.
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
From: deanp@hplsla.hp.com (Dean Payne)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:17:19 GMT
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Subject: Right to Privacy?  (was Re: democratic platform
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Reply-To: kossack@qvi.com
Organization: Feo Y Loco Fan Club 
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 00:31:39 GMT

In article <1685AC3BB.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
-                                                           I've always
- thought the right to privacy, though, rose perfectly well from the
- Fourth Amendment.

Well, to quote from a tx.politics article by my evil twin :-) 
In article <DQCIF3F@taronga.com> kossack@taronga.com (Jordan M. Kossack) writes:
>	Anyway, if there is, in fact, a constitutional right to privacy, 
>   then certainly it is obvious that any and all gun-registration laws 
>   are unconstitutional, since such registration would violate the owners' 
>   right to privacy.  Since NOW has supported firearm registration and  
>   other anti-firearm laws, it would seem that they really don't believe    
>   in a right to privacy.  Ipso facto, NOW doesn't believe abortion is 
>   protected by that non-existant constitutional right.     
>                                                (Or they're hypocrites.)  

	Food for thought.  

-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  Don't Miss Meals 
  kossack@qvi.com  |       Bag Your Diet
  +1 713 240 2073  |            Eat More Fast Food 
  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment Myths
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:08:00 GMT

In article <swood.716140308@vela>, swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu
(Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:

> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:
> 
> `Yes, and he isn't alone in that interpretation.  I believe that most of the
> `original debaters would have left it out if they could have foreseen the
> `evolution of military defense.  Who would have dreamed of tanks or helicopter
> `gunships?

Hmmm...  I think Thomas Jefferson would INSIST that the people have these
very weapons, in light of the fact that the federal government does.

         "The strongest reason for the people to  retain  the  right  to
         keep and bear arms is, as a last  resort, to protect themselves
         agianst tyrany in government." (Thomas Jefferson)

> Wait a minute here.  This kind of logic I find offensive.  The same logic
> can be applied to the first ammendment (and all the ammendments) but if
> you were to try people would cry fowl.  But meanwhile, if you do it to
> guns and gun owners, that is somehow O.K.
> 
> For example, I suppose that if the founding father could have forseen
> the evolution of communications and society in general, they would have
> considered leaving out the first ammendment.

Obviously the FF never intended _the people_ to be able to communicate
freely, and openly.  Free thinking is the bane of tyrants, and should
be banned as a danger to the federal tyrant^H^H^H^H^H^Hgovernment.
Clearly the ability to communicate through systems like RemoteNews
is dangerous to the stability of our government.  Had the FF known
of computer networks, they would have been left out the 1st...  (and if
you believe that, I've got a bridge for sale....)

> I am constantly involved with offering free gun instruction
> to anyone even mildly curious as noone in the educational system has seen
> fit to do so.  Imagine that!  Gun safety 101 in high school!  Betcha that
> would bring about a lower crime rate and less "accidents" with guns.

I'm all for this!  There's no reason to refuse to offer such a course.
If offering "drivers training", and physical education courses in
basketball, volleyball and such are within the domain of public
education, firearms safety are also within that domain.

-- 
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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: nra bbs open now!!!
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:25:00 GMT

In article <8gmncwg@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!utkcs2!gatech!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!rsiatl!jgd
>charlie.duncan@execnet.com (charlie duncan) writes:
>
>>       Well folks it's here!
>>       The NRA BBS is now open for business.
>
>>       For those of you who have called Tanya's other board
>>  [Bullet 'n Board], you may agree with me, that using it [BnB] is
>>  less than optimal.
>
>Oh my gawd.  I can't believe it.  She's about the most obnoxious 
>person involved in the gun rights movement I've ever had the displeasure 
>to talk with.  Is this BB NRA sanctioned or is she off on her own tangent?
>If it's NRA sanctioned, boy do I have some letterwriting to do.
>
>John

No, Tanya has no NRA sanction and doesn't get any of thier money.  What's 
your beef with her?  She sounds like a different person than the Tanya I 
know.  What happened?
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Subject: No Abortion and nothing Re: democratic platform
Followup-To: alt.fan.kevin-darcy
Summary: Darcy Crossposts Too Friggin Much 
Reply-To: kossack@qvi.com
Organization: Rice University Alumni Militia 
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 05:23:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.022249.17966@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
- In "basic english", "militia" usually means armed men under the control
- of government. In "basic english", "regulated" with reference to 
- organizations usually implies GOVERNMENT regulation.

	No, those groups are generally called armies.  The militia is 
   a completely different animal, no matter how many times you call 
   that tail a leg.  What's next, calling the USMC a posse comitatus? 

- 
- Do you REALLY want me to look at "basic English", i.e. modern English, Geoff? 

	I'll leave that for Geoff to answer.

- Quite frankly, I think you anti-gun-control crusaders fare better when you 
- appeal to 18th-century legalese...

	Yeah, like that atavistic due process thing.  Icky-poo!  

-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  Don't Miss Meals 
  kossack@qvi.com  |       Bag Your Diet
  +1 713 240 2073  |            Eat More Fast Food 
  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)
Subject: Re: Civil immunity states (was Re: Hand-loads for defens)
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:52:09 GMT

In article <6262@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <tmi.715760492@well.sf.ca.us>, tmi@well.sf.ca.us (Peter Kasler) writes:
>> 	California *does not* require a defender to "run away" or to
>> retreat in any way, even if it is possible, before defending against
>> an attack. Some states, however, do so require. MA, for example,
>> requires that one "retreat to the wall" even in one's own home before
>> defending one's self.
>
>Your information is wrong, or possibly just outdated.  All that is
>required in your own home is that you, and any reasonable person, would
>conclude that you are in danger of losing your life, or of sustaining 
>serious bodily harm.

Generally speaking, you need to add another requirement to justify
lethal self defense: the danger must be unaviodable *except* thru use
of lethal force.  This "avoidability" is the basis on which some
jurisdictions have implied a duty to retreat when possible to do
so safely (the duty to retreat may be mitigated if doing so would 
leave someone else, a child for example, in danger).  

I don't have the case name, but the "back to the wall" reputation Mass.
got was from a court case where a woman shot someone in her basement
(an estranged husband, I think) - the court found her guilty of something
(I'm not sure what) and mentioned that she "could have climbed out the
window".  Subsequent legislation has reduced the obligation to retreat
in one's home here in Mass, however, they will still make life hell for
anyone who uses lethal force.

>-- 
>
>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...


Rob Boudrie
rboudrie@chpc.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: bws20@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Brian W Simmons)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Why a sawed-off shotgun?
Date: 12 Sep 92 08:07:40 GMT
Reply-To: bws20@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Brian W Simmons)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article: <1992Sep10.175638.26928@dg-rtp.dg.com>Bill  Meyers
claims he never made the statement to whichIresponded.  MAkes me seem like
a liar, huh?  WEll, Bill is correct, and I do apologize profusely.  I
just checked on the letter from which I quoted and I grossly misread the
"#" indicating he was quoting someone else.

The proper attribution from Bill' s letter was:

BM> More like 17.9 inches, according to article <BtK0v9.9sJhsi.com>
BM>[in t.p.g, I think], by bobwest%code3@uunet.UU.NET (Bob Westover):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
#It has come to my attention that Mr Weaver's "crime" was having a shotgun
#barrel too short by *** .1 inch ***. Certainly justification for all the
#bloodshed that has and will occur over the matter. [sarcasm off]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

AGain, my sincere apologies for the mis-attribution

bws

************* enclosure **********************************************

In article <fbPY02lS20ew01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> bws20@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Brian W Simmons) writes:
>
>In article: <9209072023.AA08588@dg-rtp.dg.com>
>
>Bill Meyers signs off with:
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>#It has come to my attention that Mr Weaver's "crime" was having a shotgun
>#barrel too short by *** .1 inch ***. Certainly justification for all the
>#bloodshed that has and will occur over the matter. [sarcasm off]
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Meyers neither said that nor signed off with it.
--
**************************************************************************
bws20@amail.amdahl.com      the human heart holds hidden treasures,
brian wesley simmons          in secret kept, in silence sealed
**************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Gun Buys and "NRA Propaganda" (Was: Seattle Buy-Back Update)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:56:39 GMT

<In article <82472@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:

<The point that Nick makes about getting "press" is important.  As one of the
<"anti's", I feel that such programs serve to dramatize the role of guns in
<our society.  

	No, they show the role of dollars in our society; these
	aren't "turn ins", they are "buys".

	And I *still* have not gotten an answer about the legality
	of these programs; are there FFL's involved, or not?

<To show that not everyone who owns a gun is happy with it.  

	I suppose this is true in some cases. However, I have
	a hard time with, say, a widow who sells a firearm worth
	some hundreds of dollars to one of these programs for $50
	when she could sell the same item to a collector for more
	money.

	Other abuses of the programs have been cited; serving
	as "fences" for stolen property and such.
		
<For some people, the possession of the gun alone was greater than
<their fear of criminals.  Gun possession, for these people, went 
<from the lesser of two evils to the greater of two evils.  

	Maybe. I'm not a mind reader, so I don't know what
	other people's motivations are unless they tell me.
	(Even then, self-delusion may make their true
	 motives unknowable).

	Did people participating in the buyback provide motivations
	at the time, or is Wojcik merely speculating, here?

<The question is, how many gun owners really want
<to live in a society where gun possession is unrestricted?  
	
	I suspect that very few want to live in a society
	where firearms possession is *totally* unrestricted.
	However, I'm unaware of any such societies existing
	at this time. Perhaps Wojcik can provide examples?

<NRA propaganda would have us believe that they all do.

	Really? Perhaps Wojcik can give us some examples
	of this "NRA propaganda". It should be easy for
	him to do.....

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Seattle Buy-Back Update
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 02:19:26 GMT

In article <92Sep8.173155edt.47951@neat.cs.toronto.edu> quoctp@cs.toronto.edu (Quoc Tuan Pham) writes:
>>>Also, there was a woman who turned in her son's (in his late 20s, not a kid)
>>>$1700 rifle, because she didn't approve of the hobby.

>So did he get his gun back? He could sue these people for possession
>of stolen property or accessory to theft!

As far as I know, he hasn't: He explained the situation to the San Francisco
police and they refused to return it. He even tried to get them to
_arrest_ his mother for thieft, which they also wouldn't do. As for
civil action, the police can buy stolen goods all they want (this is
a standard proceedure in undercover operations and the police seem
to be exempt from these laws.) Remember, the _intention_ of a buy-back
program is to buy stolen firearms and get them off the streets (well, 
that's the excuse, at least...)

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Re: Seattle Buy-Back Update
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:30:12 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

nick@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Nick Leiterman) writes:
>                                 In Seattle it is not the police
>who are buying the guns, it is a non profit group of people supposedly
>not connected with the government.  Washington state has a law that says
>guns confiscated by the police cant be destroyed.  I heard that the seattle
>police ignore this law.

More precisely, the law requires that all guns confiscated by the police
must be auctioned to licensed gun dealers in a public auction.  This is
intended as a revenue enhancement mechanism for the state.

The Seattle Police Department ignores this law.  They are holding the
guns in storage, and have been doing this for years; by now they have
quite a collection of hardware!  Other state police departments auction
the guns in accordance with the law.

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
From: leone@GANDALF.SSW.COM (Bob Leone)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:01:10 GMT

> >And why include this quote?  You read that new book didn't you?  Well,
> >for your information trees do cause 'air' pollution - I can't attest
> >for the figure of 80% as I am not an ecologist.  But you must not let
> >your emotions get ahold of you before considering the logic in this.
> >Do not let yourself equate air pollution with other kinds of pollution.
>  
>        Actually, trees do NOT produce air pollution they clean it
>up.  They take in CO2 and give off O2.  We and our factories/cars/etc
>do just the opposite.  You may be thinking of decaying trees, that
>give off some pollutants, but it isn't the live ones.  What does,
>however, give off a large amount of greenhouse gasses is volcanos and
>biological decay.  That may be what you're thinking of.

You're both right. Trees do remove CO2 from the air. They also emit
certain organic chemicals into the air, which are classified as pollutants
by the EPA when emitted by human industry.

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

    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.  The strongest reason
    for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last
    resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
	   - Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, June 1776
	     1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Florio veto in New Jersey (as predicted)
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:05:37 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

(Reprinted without permission from USA Today, 9/10/92, p 2A)


             N.J. Governor Rejects Lighter Gun Bill

"New Jersey Gov. Jim Florio vetoed a bill that would have permitted
 ownership of several assault weapons currently outlawed, thus
 preserving the USA's toughest gun law.  The law allowed more than
 60 types of assault weapons, but still made possession of an Uzi
 or AK-47 illegal.  Florio asked the legislature to put the assault
 weapons issue in a non-binding referendum on the November ballot.
 Florio also signed into law a bill making it a crime to bring
 knives and brass knuckles into schools."
---

For all those USA Today readers who find the above "article" too
lengthy to comprehend, they have very kindly summarized it even
further.  The caption under Florio's picture reads: "FLORIO: Wants
issue on ballot".

I will also withhold comment on the statement that New Jersey's
gun laws are the strictest in the United States.  But perhaps some
net.resident.of.NY.or.DC would care to say a few words...?

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Date: 16 Sep 92 02:36:57 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <82739@bcsaic.boeing.com>, rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:

> Oh, come on.  The militia was supposed to be trained and ready for war.  Who was
> supposed to do that?  The local parish priest?

Geez, Wojcik, you just GOTTA find SOMEBODY to organize these guys, because
obviously they're too lame to do anything like organize themselves.

> So when is the last time you went to militia drills with your neighborhood
> gun owners? 

Ask Frank Ney, why don't you.
-- 

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,talk.abortion