HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Re: Gun climate in Washington State
Date: 01 Oct 92 02:54:29 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>I have a net-less friend who is considering a job in Washington State but
>before he does it, he'd like to know the political climate there regarding
>guns.  Could someone who lives there and knows the score please write me 
>and give me some info to pass on?  Thanks.
> 
>John De Armond, WD4OQC

Washington state is quite good.  We have non-discretionary CWPs,
state preemption, and no waiting period for CWP holders.

Legally, the situation is even better.  Washington state is the only
state in the Union (so far as I know) in which an affirmative defense
does not carry the burden of proof.  Furthermore, if you *are* legally
charged for a self-defense shooting, and subsequently found to have
acted appropriately, the state is required by law to reimburse all your
legal fees.  Finally, the rules of engagement are lenient; we do NOT
have a "back to the wall" rule: we are allowed to stand our ground (if
desired) in any place where we have a legal right to be, including
public streets and _especially_ our own homes.  We are even theoretically
allowed to apply force, including lethal force, to protect property which
is lawfully in our possession.  [Note that I do not advocate such action,
I am merely reporting what the law says.]  The end result of all these
facts is that Washington prosecutors generally will not prosecute for
a self-defense shooting unless there are unusual or suspicious
circumstances.  In the words of a lawyer acquaintance of mine: "if you
are going to shoot someone in self-defense, Washington is probably the
best state in which to do it."

Politically, the situation has been likewise positive.  The House of
Representatives has passed two relatively mild gun-control bills in
the past two years, and both of them were stopped cold in the state
Senate.

There are many pro-gun organizations and training opportunities based
in the greater Seattle area, including the CCRKBA, the Second Amendment
Foundation, InSights training center, and the Firearms Academy of
Seattle.  If anyone on this newsgroup is a fan of Bradley Steiner
(although I personally cannot imagine why you would be) his school is
likewise based here in Seattle.

On the down side, class III weapons are banned.  And there is a five-
day waiting period for people without a CWP.

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Why we should have gun control
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:46:41 GMT

Recently here in Massachusetts some guy had a knife and used it to hijack a car
and kidnap its owner (a woman).  She was also sexually assaulted.  A similar
incident occured not too long later.  A guy had a knife and tried hijacking a
car.  It may have been the same guy.  Anyway the owner of this car happened to
be a private investigator.  So when the carjacker pulled out his knife the PI
pulled out his gun.  Needless to say the carjacker wasn't able to steal the
PI's car.  I guess that's why they say, "Support Gun Control--Make a Criminal
Smile."
--Ray Cote
     "The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the
conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going."
                                                   --Francis H.C. Crick
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:38:20 GMT

In article <83662@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>We've probably been talking at cross purposes.  The history of the 2nd was
>directly linked to attempts to limit the power of the federal government,
>even to outlaw a federal standing army in peacetime.  The compromise language that
>ultimately emerged was much stripped down in order to prevent the Antifederalists
>from losing everything.  There is little question that the "militia" mentioned
>in Article I was the same "militia" mentioned in the 2nd.  At least, in my
>mind.

Article One, Section Eight grants the power to "regulate" and train
the militia. It also grants to power to create and arms whatever 
"select" militias Congress wants. However, these select militias are
not the _only_ sort of militia, and the militia does not depend on acts
of Congress to exist: The Second Amendment asserts that the militia is
necessary, and protects the right to own firearms, so that the
militia (armed citiznes) will always exist. That is, it "is intended
to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government..."
As Mr. Gerry said during the House debate over the proposed Amendment.

>Andy, my original comments about the militia had to do with the so-called
>"unorganized militia," not the National Guard.  How many militias are we
>talking about here? 

Essentially one: Congress and the states are responsible for training it,
but they have no power to eliminate it.

>When I pointed out that the natural concept of
>a militia is that of an organization trained to military tactics, asking whose
>responsibility it was to guarantee that aspect of militia training, I was given
>the "impeach your governor" solution.  If it's not a "state militia" in any 
>sense, then why should the governor be punished for neglecting it? 

Because the governor is responsible, under Article One, Section Eight, for
"training the Militia according to the discipline perscribed by Congress..."
In this respect, he is an agent of the federal government carrying out
the policies of Congress. Simply beacuse a state official is involved,
doesn't mean that state has control of the subject. (State courts,
for example, can rule that a law violates the federal Constitution
without implying they have control over the Constitution.)

                                                Frank Crary
                                                CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: Morton Grove appears in Newsweek
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:15:39 GMT


In <1992Sep25.195452.21326@cbfsb.cb.att.com> Mr. X states:

|>The $64 question is
|>	How can women in Morton Grove protect themselves?

|	You IDIOT, don't you know ANYTHING?!  They call 911, of course.
|	The police will be there in a jiffy to thwart the evil criminal.
|	Sheesh, some people...

This statement is ALMOST 100% on. The local news media starting pushing
CELLULAR TELEPHONES for women after this 'fake policemen' stuff started
up. I say almost because the emergency number for cellular phones in
this area is "*"-something. Even the local business magazine Crains
Chicago Business mentioned this as helping cellular telephone business;
of course, no mention was made of exactly what the police were going
to do for you if you did reach them...

|	-Andy V.
From: loeb@ai.mit.edu (Eric Loeb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: (none)
Date: 26 Sep 92 22:39:22 GMT

Subject:  AUTOMATED CLINTON/GORE MAIL SERVICE
 
 Bill Clinton and Al Gore are committed to bringing all Americans 
 into the American political process -- for the good of our country.  
 At this critical time in our country's history it is imperative that 
 we all do everything in our power to make our system work.  
 
 We are happy to announce a new step forward in 21st century 
 democracy: We now have a mail server that will allow you, the 
 internet citizen, to receive on-line campaign documents and send 
 your comments and ideas back to us.
 

 To learn more, send mail to the automated Clinton/Gore mail server 
 
    clinton-wins@mail.clinton-gore.org



 RECEIVE THE LATEST SPEECHES:
 
 If you send the Subject line "info speeches" to the mail server, 
 you will receive all the latest Clinton/Gore speeches as soon as 
 they come on-line.


 RECEIVE ALL AVAILABLE POSITION PAPERS:
 
 If you send the Subject line "info all" to the mail server at, 
 you will receive the full set of Clinton/Gore position papers.


 QUERY THE CANIDATES -- INTERNET POLL:
 
 If you have a question for Bill Clinton or Al Gore, then send your
 question to the mail server ("clinton-wins@mail.clinton-gore.org")
 with the Subject line "question propose".  

 Send the Subject line "question get" to get the current numbered 
 list of questions.  

 Send the Subject line "question vote <X Y>" to vote for questions 
 number <X> and <Y>.  For example, you would send the SUBJECT line 
 "question vote 3" to vote for question number 3.

 Each week the questions with the most votes will be forwarded to 
 Little Rock.

 
 SEND YOUR SUGGESTIONS & COMMENTS

 If you have a suggestion for Bill Clinton or Al Gore, then send your
 suggestion to the mail server ("clinton-wins@mail.clinton-gore.org")
 with the Subject line "suggest propose".  

 Send the Subject line "suggest get" to get the current numbered 
 list of suggestions.  

 Send the Subject line "suggest vote <a b c>" to vote for suggestions 
 number <a>, <b>, and <c>.  For example, you would send the Subject 
 line "suggest vote 18 4" to vote for suggestions 18 and 4.
 

 The questions, suggestions, and the campaign's responses will be 
 posted to the network.  You can help redistribute this and other 
 information by sending the Subject line "volunteer email distr" 
 to the mail server at

 clinton-wins@mail.clinton-gore.org
 


 Clinton/Gore '92
 Volunteer Email Effort


Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:21776 misc.legal:18176
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Leonard Levy, "Original Intent", etc.
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:47:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct6.204705.25784
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

jdw@unislc.uucp (James Warren) writes:
>What makes you think that they meant different things each time they used
>the word "people"?  Was it the same with all words, or only that one?
>Was you there, did someone tell you this, or did you just make it up?  If
>you ever need work, the news media is always looking for someone who can
>come up with this s*!t on the fly.  (Did you at least smile as you wrote
>this?)

Try reading again what Mike wrote.  He said that *IF* the second is not
an individual right, *THEN* the word "people" has a different meaning.
How do you get from this that Mike thinks that they have different
meanings?

--Tim Smith
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Privileges and Rights. (was: Re: GORE...)
Date: 3 Oct 92 06:26:33 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes:

>Hmmm.  Okay, again, I'll agree with you.  Glad to do so, in fact.  
>I would "defend to the death" your right to operate a vehicle on your
>own, wholly owned property.  However (I'm not entirely comfortable
>with this argument, but it follows) as an owner in joint tenancy
>(with you, and every other citizen) I (and my fellow citizens) have
>chosen to make rules about what you may do on *our* property.  

Though I have restudied the Constitution and am now somewhat satisfied
the government has the authority to own property, I don't accept the 
notion of all of us owing a little piece if it.  If so, then I want my
little chunk out of the center of I-75 so I can set up a toll booth!
Our government is a representative republic with a government as an 
entity separate from the people, though of the people, by the people, etc.
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.

>I
>would hope that we would make rules only about those things *likely*
>to cause harm to a great number of us (your fellow owners) such as
>operating a giant, powerful machine without training.

Somewhat agreed, though none of this affects driving being a RIGHT.
Judging traffic laws SHOULD be according to the same standards as are
held against prior restraint and other enumerated rights.  The 
whole concept of the 9th and 10th amendments is to clearly define the fact
that the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights are a subset of a 
citizen's rights.

>I would infinitely prefer to have virtually no rules about what you
>may do, and intervene only when you *have* caused harm (i.e. a tort)
>but apparently my co-owners don't feel that way.

Judging by how many people ignore traffic laws, the entity called government
is not very responsive to the will of the people.  So what else is new?

Neither the goverment nor the people should be permitted to infringe any
individual right absent constitutional authority.  That authority should
come via amendments.  This is not a new concept.  As recently as the 
early 20th century, the government realized that a constitutional amendment
was necessary in order to infring our non-enumerated right to drink alcohol.
We are all to blame for allowing the modern government to make a mockery
of the constitution in the name of convenience.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lcline@agora.rain.com (Larry Cline)
Subject: Re: Stupid question time
Organization: Open Communications Forum
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 03:46:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.180802.23772@cbfsb.cb.att.com> osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) writes:
>Let's see... how exactly do I phrase this properly...
>
>We have a Congress that passes laws, no?  And we have a judiciary that makes
>rulings and decisions based on those laws. They also make determinations as
>to the consitutional validity of certain laws when such questions become
>germaine to said rulings and decisions.  Sometimes laws are declared 
>unconstitutional and are effectively nullified by such declaration.
>
>OK, fine so far.  Given these "facts" (assuminng I have them sufficiently
>correct), I ask: Do our illustrious legislators consider constitutionality
>questions of the legislations they present to the floor for debate and vote?
>Or, as in the case of gun legislation, do they just consider what they think
>they can squeeze by their colleagues, banking on the fact that once passed,
>it it unlikely that the SC will ever take issue with the contitutionality of
>their work?
>

I thought that that was the purpose of the Judiciary Committees in 
Congress.  In reality, the committees probably conform to the latter half
of your paragraph, at least within the committees.

>Is there any "reasonable" mechanism that could be put into place that could
>prevent the passage of unconstitutional laws?  I know this sounds really
>stupid, but as things stand right now, we are really quite at the mercy of
>the Congress.  They COULD do things that are even nastier than they already
>do to us.  Once their control over us passes a certain threshold, they should
>be able to start making very large and radical changes and we'd be basically
>helpless to do anything about it, not that it is not close to that today, but
>it would be IMNSHO a lot worse.
>

That would probably take a major revamping of the Legislative process (which
it could probably used).  The idea I had for that was to remove all legis-
lators from everything but voting on the final bills, and replace them with
a multipartisan committee with no member on more than one committee.

>Any of you folks have any thoughts on this?
>
>	-Andy V.


-- 
Larry Cline (Amiga Harpoon Scenario Administrator)
lcline@agora.rain.com
C_________   Industrial Graphics

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Re: Handguns 'n' Long guns (Was: Re: Libertarians, guns, etc.)
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:07:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.232440.23917@iitmax.iit.edu> draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn) writes:

[ a series of valid points about the utility of handguns for self-defense 
  deleted ]

>Naturally, handguns are forbidden in Chicago.

Naturally.  They don't call it C(r)ook County for nuthin'.

>On the other hand, rifles are bulky, difficulty to maneuver, require
>both hands, and have far more power than is needed.  Weilding a good

In such a case, why not use a shotgun with a barrel at the minimum
legal length?  You'd still have some of the problems with bulkiness,
difficulty to maneuver, and so forth, but overpenetration wouldn't
be as bad as a .30-06.  Or has C(r)ook County made shotguns illegal
too?

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

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: NSW homicides
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:02:44 GMT

In article <LAMBERT.92Oct1021348@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>,
lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:

> In my goodness of fit calculation I used 19 degrees of freedom (21

Huh!?  19 degrees of freedom!  That's enough to least-square fit an elephant!

> data values less two fitted parameters) in the Chi square statistic.
> Should I have use 18 df?

I suspect you're drawing meaningless conclusions from your pseudo-
scientific method...

-- 
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: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Bush vs. Clinton on the Brady Bill
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 04:59:44 GMT

>	So, how _can_ I seceed from the Union and start my own country
>of Iowegia?  Let's give this 10% of a smiley.

Win a war against the federal government.

                                                    Frank Crary
                                                    CU Boulder
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Yet further tripe from Richard Reeves
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:02:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.024530.16940@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.235318.43429@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>,
>conley@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
> ...
>> In The American Prospect, Bogus wrestles with a paradox: Polls
>> indicate that as many as 95% of Americans favor strictor gun control - 
>
>Obviously another Bogus statistic...
> ...

  I think that *all* of us (criminals excepted :-) are in favor of
keeping guns away from violent criminals.  Since this is not done
well (if at all) today, it is fair to say that doing this would be
"stricter gun control" than we now have.

  While there are important concerns about how such "stricter gun
control" would affect everyone else, these concerns aren't discussed
in the usual poll question.  So I find it quite reasonable that
95% or more of the American public would answer "Yes" to a question
such as, "Do you favor stricter gun controls which would diminish
the access of violent criminals to guns?"  I also think that the
typical person would assume that "everything else being equal"
is implicitly part of the question.

--henry schaffer
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt)
Subject: Re: Re: A little on self defense (what should I carry ?)
Originator: swatt@mickey.CS.Yale.Edu
Organization: Yale University, Computing & Information Systems
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:01:58 GMT


In article <1679@tnc.UUCP>, m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY) writes:
|> 
|> Notes on self-defense locked in a safe-deposit box??????!!!!!!!!
|> 
|> What is Ayoob teaching in there that he is so afraid of being found
|> out by society at large?  Or is this just a ploy to get him more
|> students?
|> 
|> Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-P  LPVa NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E"
|> Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia
|> Send e-mail for an application and more information
|> ----------------------------------------------------------------


The original poster's statement is somewhat misleading.  There is nothing
about self-defense notes per se which need to be protected from "being
found out".  Ayoob's adivce is to write up your notes from the course,
mail them to yourself certified, and lock the *unopened* envelop in your
safe deposit box.  Your notes are discoverable, and help establish what
you knew at the time.

Should you end up in court on a self-defense shooting, the notes, with
proof of date, establish that you had certain knowledge *at the time*
of the shooting.  It also helps if your notes mention LFI videotapes
by title, because it shows that you saw the videotape and therefore
your attorney can introduce the videotape in evidence (i.e., the jury
gets to see it).  The prosecutor will have a hard time cross-examining
the videotape, and if he subpoenas Ayoob, so much the better.

This is not sneaky; this is excellent advice -- so said an attorney who
was part of my LFI-1 course.
-- 
  Alan S. Watt
  Yale University			Computing and Information Systems
  Box 2112 Yale Station			(203) 432-6602
  New Haven, CT  06520-2112		Watt-Alan@Yale.Edu
From: malc@pyramid.unr.edu (Malcolm L. Carlock)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Criminal finally stopped...by a gun
Date: 28 Sep 92 00:58:32 GMT
Organization: Xinaian Tourist Bureau

In article <92265.57108.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>
>[Thug in SF run off by legally armed hotel guest]
>
>   Do you people really think that scum like [the thug] would obey gun
>control laws?

It's already clear that this thug didn't -- it's already illegal to carry
and/or own handguns in SF without a permit.  Golly!  Didn't the thug know
it's ILLEGAL to carry a gun in SF, not to mention threatening hotel guests
with one?

>Do you really think that an unarmed victim could ever defend him/herself
>an armed hoodlum who won't obey gun laws?

It seems clear that the other dozen or so (unarmed) victims J056600 describes
weren't successful in doing so, but that the one armed potential victim was...
--
Malcolm L. Carlock                      Internet:  malc@unr.edu
                                        UUCP:      unr!malc
                                        BITNET:    malc@equinox
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
id <m0maZMa-0000MpC@crash.cts.com>; Thu, 1 Oct 92 15: 51 PDT
	id <j156368@pro-amber.cts.com>; Thu,  1 Oct 92 15: 39 PDT
From: rsopicki@pro-amber.cts.com (Randy Sopicki)
Subject: Perot
Organization: ProLine [pro-amber] -- Spring Valley, Ca
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 15:33:09 PDT

Being that Perot is back in again could someone educate me as to his stance
on gun control?

ProLine:  rsopicki@pro-amber
Internet: rsopicki@pro-amber.cts.com
UUCP:     crash!pro-amber!rsopicki