HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: A thought on the comming gun bans
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Nov14.054404.4397@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
	<ATAYLOR.92Nov16143121@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<1992Nov17.050633.17219@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:09:32 GMT

<In article <1992Nov17.050633.17219@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
<In article <ATAYLOR.92Nov16143121@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
<><Because the Supreme Court (for some reason) considers the seizere of
<><things used to commit another, unrealted crime to be different from
<><a general ban (e.g. seizing a car used to transport drugs isn't the same as
<><a seizure of cars in general.)

<>	So if President Clinton's "Drug Czar" were to declare all 
<>	so-called "semi-automatic assault rifles" to be "drug dealer 
<>	paraphenalia" under an Executive Order and order their seizure
<>	under civil law, the Supreme Court would no doubt hear
<>	the case just like they heard all those RICO cases?

<   No, if Clinton were to do that, the RICO statutes could be applied
<   when (and _only_ when) there was reason to suspect the owner was
<   involved in drug-related crimes.

	Missing the point; if mere possession of >$500 in cash
	and a brown skin is sufficient "reason to suspect the
	owner is involved in drug-related crimes" in the El Paso,
	Texas airport, what's to stop the Federales & lesser
	lights from running civil forfeiture on anyone who
	possesses a "drug gun"?

	Recall that Chicago already has a law on the books
	that calls for civil forfeiture of any vehicle used
	to carry "assault rifles" and I honestly wonder if
	it can be overturned.
	
	Merely having the "drug gun" could be "reason to suspect
	the owner was involved in drug-related crimes".

	Yes, I'm aware the "logic" is circular....so what?

	It's the same "logic" that allows Drug Warriors to
	stop, frisk and remove all money from "suspicious"
	persons in airports across the US.

	It's the same "logic" that enables certain Sheriffs
	in Florida to seize any airplane that takes their
	fancy at the local airport.

	It's the same "logic" that recently cost a man his
	life and his widow their house and land in Southern
	Kalifornia.

<>	Let's all hope that Clinton's Justice Department doesn't
<>	decide to RICO a few firearms owners....

<   I hope so. From the looks of the newspaper statements, this might not
<   happen: Crime and supposed crime reduction laws (i.e. gun control) are
<   not among the "hot" issues Clinton says he will initiallty focus on.

	I'm worried about what he'll do to grab headlines once
	it becomes obvious that the "hot" issues aren't going
	to be solved; will he decide to get a quick and easy
	"win"?

	Clinton has already shown that he can be pushed around
	by Congress.
From: yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Tanks, Revos, Etc. (Was: Registering "Assault Keys")
Date: 16 Nov 1992 22:04:45 -0500
Organization: Yale Computer Science Department
NNTP-Posting-Host: cathy.na.cs.yale.edu

ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
><In article <1e1lljINNi81@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU> yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:
><The Vietcong brought out tanks on occasion.
>
>	Citation, please?
>
>	Yarvin wouldn't be confusing "Viet Cong" with "North
>	Vietnamese People's Army", would he?
>
>	There *was* a difference.

Not much of one.  They were both controlled by the same people.  The Viet
Cong had some units similar to the NVA's, and also included a lot of second-
and third-grade troops who stayed roughly in the area where they were
recruited.

The distinction I believe is relevant is between the guerrilla-type war
waged while US forces were present, and the massive conventional invasion
that took place after we left.  The latter, of course, used plenty of
tanks.  But there were isolated incidents of the Vietnamese smuggling in a
tank or two even in the guerrilla phase.  I don't have any citation for
these; I read about them in sci.military.  One incident was when the
Vietnamese tried to wipe out a Special Forces camp.

--
Norman Yarvin						yarvin@cs.yale.edu
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun Control: A modern, REALISTIC view.
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:37:50 GMT
Organization: N/I

In article <lajqzwl@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
[ ... ]
>perimeter of security.  This would be done with a match grade bolt
>action rifle, a shooting iron that has never been suggested to be banned.

Uh, John ...
Reprinted w/o permission from the June 29, 1990, Durham Morning Herald, p. A3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        The Power of Terrorists

     WASHINGTON (AP) -- Terrorists could knock out electrical power to an
American city by using store-bought rifles on carefully chosen targets,
congressional researchers said Thursday.

     Armed with high-powered rifles available from any gun store and some
basic engineering knowledge, terrorists could wreak havoc without having to
get past a single guard at generating plants, Robin Roy of the congressional
Office of Technology Assessment told the Senate Government Affairs Committee.

     "Two or three knowledgeable individuals using only readily available,
off-the-shelf supplies could destroy enough facilities to cause a short-term
blackout over a metropolitan area, followed by months of reduced reliability
and rotating power outages during peak periods," Roy told the panel, which is
investigating the vulnerability of power plants to terrorists, hurricanes and
earthquakes.
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: the US elections...
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:07:29 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Nov17.224621.18137@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.011357.16581@csus.edu> altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov15.121653.14888@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>
>>I don't know why there is always such a vociferous reaction on the part of
>>gun owners to any mention of this topic. A little sensitive? Nothing in
>>either Ashley's or my post talked about abolition of handguns, only tighter
>>controls over their distribution.

>As long as you're completely uninterested in the effects of those
>"tighter controls", we're going to squawk.  After all, we're the only
>people being affected.  Scapegoats are like that.

>It is a bit much to expect that people who moan about being accused of
>doing child-sacrifices would understand this sort of thing, and that's
>sad.

How would you and Ashley react to limits on abortion, say limiting it
to life of the mother? After all, we're not talking about abolishing
abortions, just tighter control over their distribution.

 

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Date: 15 Nov 1992 19:19:43 -0500
Organization: Yale Computer Science Department
NNTP-Posting-Host: cathy.na.cs.yale.edu

starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>I've heard some claim that we might have had a violent revolution because of
>the Great Depression if we hadn't had the New Deal (although it could be
>argued that this WAS the violent revolution).

I think there is only one group of people who might use the phrase "violent
revolution" to describe the New Deal.  This is the same group which has
started using the word "firestorm" to describe an intellectual confrontation;
the original meaning of firestorm being a reference to a fire so vast that
it creates hurricane-force winds.

>  Suppose we have another
>depression, as is argued in "The Great Reckoning".  Then the living stan-
>dard would drop, the press would be more anti-government (if free at all),
>and revolution achievable, right?

The press might be "anti-government" in the sense that they encouraged
people to vote for the opposition, but there is a large difference between
that and, say, encouraging people to blow up government buildings.  Or, to
take a recent example, encouraging people to kill cops.

--
Norman Yarvin						yarvin@cs.yale.edu
 "Power corrupts.  Absolute power is kind of neat."
		-- John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy 1981-1987
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun Control:  A modern, REALISTIC view.
Date: 16 Nov 1992 13:53:50 -0600
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com

In article <1992Nov16.085334.10791@nntp.uoregon.edu> davidw@cie.uoregon.edu (David Weingarten) writes:

[lots of stuff about how the government can snuff us out at anytime and
armed rebellion is useless, etc, etc, etc]

I agree that the US Military could crush any civilian rebelion but at
what cost.  Would US generals be willing to destroy the entire country
to stay in power - power over a pile of rubble?

You probably can't defeat them but you can make it way too costly for
them to win.  In VietNam we could have destroyed the North Vietnamese
with a couple nukes but we were not willing to do so.

In the American Revolution the British had the most powerful navy in
the world.  The could have cut America off from the rest of the world.
They could have kept fighting and probably would have eventually
killed all the rebels.  They weren't willing to do so - it was too
expensive.


Your arguments focus on the wrong target anyway.  You claim the
government would be able to put down any rebellion because the
military is huge, they control communications and intelligence and
basically have complete control over everything needed to win a war.
This may be true but its not an argument to repeal the 2nd ammendment
- its an argument to take all this power away from the government
before they become real tyranical.
-- 
-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
From: blanch@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (David Blanchard)
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 02:03:30 GMT
Subject: Re: Alternative RKBA Groups Needed
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

> How about the Libertarian Party of the United States?

(Sorry about the double post)

I don't think the LP can get mired in a single issue. Even though they
fully support RKBA, taking a highly aggressive stance would alienate
many of those they need to enlist. Pretty much the same place the NRA is
in.
From: miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant)
Subject: Re: Japanese exchange student killed in Louisiana...
    <1992Nov14.184926.21506@ms.uky.edu> <Bxqpzw.K13@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 19:04:12 GMT
Organization: University of Kentucky, USA. -5 GMT

wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:

>In article <1992Nov14.184926.21506@ms.uky.edu> miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:
>>My outlook on this case (with my limited knowledge of the shooting).
>>
>> The guy who shot should be and probably will be fried.
>>After all, one must be certain that a imediate danger to life or limb
>>exists before discharging a firearm at a person. Its a tragedy, for the

>You do not have to be certain. You have to have a reasonable belief
>based on the situation. I don't know all of the facts, neither do you,

 I agree. My original statement was flawed in that aspect.
 What I *do* know, is that that in most states a person would be required to
 maintain their safe refuge in the house and call the police *before* actively
 seeking out the "perp" and shooting him.

>I'd like to give him a fair trial before we fry him.

 Unfortunately, he's already "fried". Do you actually think that he will be
 aquitted after the media coverage its had both here and Japan? I don't.
 I'm not saying he is guilty, because like you said, we don't know all the
 facts. But as I understand it now, he is in a world of shit.
 I believe Massad Ayoob says that even if you are justified in a shooting, it
 will probably cost you at least $10k to defend it. 

>>dead student, and now for the shooter who is going to have to pay.
>>This kind of thing is as harmful to the RKBA cause as is acrazed psycho
>>shooting many people IMHO.
>>
>Our political agenda probably did not fit into his calculus of
>events when he fired. If you were in immediate fear for your 
>life, which is plausible in this shooting, you probably 
>wouldn't either.

 Agreed. And I hope it turns out that the guy was justified. It wouldn't
 help the dead japanese man, but it would save the legal and some of the 
 psycological costs to the shooter and his family.

> | Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only  |
From: yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Date: 20 Nov 1992 19:03:59 -0500
Organization: Yale Computer Science Department
NNTP-Posting-Host: cathy.na.cs.yale.edu

starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1ef50vINN24b@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU> yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:
>}Terrorism in and of itself it cannot not produce a change in government.
>}There is one exception: assassination of somebody like the President.  Lone
>}tyrants can be and have been brought down by such means.  But modern
>}collective tyrannies are often less susceptible.  There was nobody in, say,
>}the former Soviet Union whose assassination would have changed the form of
>}government.
>
>Well, I don't know about you, but I like the idea that the President would
>have to worry about getting assasinated by a mob of angry people if he
>got tyrannical.

It would not be a mob of angry people which would do the assassination; it
would be a lone sniper who would do the job coolly and professionally.  He
would have to make his plans well in advance in order to get a decent shot.
And even under a gun ban such a man could get a rifle.

>Your claim about the Soviet Union seems false, though, when you consider the
>possibility of the assasination of Stalin prior to the death of Lenin.  I've
>heard of historians arguing that if only Lenin had lived, the USSR would
>have liberalized in the 1930s.

I doubt these historians mention Lenin's guards.  That is, the ones he
imported from Estonia because there were no Russians which were sufficiently
reliable.  Is a man who must be insulated from his countrymen going to be
inclined to liberalize?  I doubt it.

Lenin's ideas were well known even before he began to put them into effect.
During the first world war the Germans transported him back from his exile
across Germany in a sealed boxcar and into Russia.  Not as an agent, or
anybody who would owe Germany favors, but as a subversive who would destroy
the Russian nation.

Of course this objection to your statements about Lenin does not affect the
substance of your argument; it merely pushes it back by one person.  That
is, what if Lenin had been assassinated?  I don't know.  In saying that the
Soviet Union was relatively invulnerable to assassinations, I am relying
mainly on Viktor Suvorov's account of the way power was exercised in the
modern USSR.  He describes it as being shared between the Communist Party,
the KGB, and the Red Army.  Whenever one of the three got too strong, the
other two would combine against it.  Thus the system was quite stable.  An
assassination which hit any one of the three could not affect it.

Suvorov (a pseudonym) defected to the West after a long career in the army
and in military intelligence.  His books are uniformly interesting.

--
Norman Yarvin						yarvin@cs.yale.edu
 "Talk, v.t. To commit an indiscretion without temptation, from an impulse
  without purpose." -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: u4944@cray.com (Charles Hubbert)
Subject: Application for Carry Concealed Pistols License
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: 17 Nov 92 08:57:49 CST

I have recently purchased, legally, a DA revolver.  According to the
State of Michigan Basic Pistol Safety Pamphlet which I was given AFTER
I took the mandatory 15 question test prior to being issued my License to
Purchase a pistol, A License to Carry Concealed Pistols is generally required
for transporting a pistol, loaded or unloaded, in  motor vehicle."

Further, "Without a Concealed Pistols License you are limited to transporting
a pistol unloaded, in a wrapper or container, in the trunk of a vehicle only
in the following circumstances:

	1. en route to or from a hunting or target shooting area, provided
	you are in possession of a valid Michigan hunting license or
	membership in a organization that has target shooting range facilities.

	2. transporting from the place of purchase, to your home, or place
	of business, or place of repair.

	3. in moving goods from one place of abode or business to another
	place of abode or business.

	4. to your local police agency, within 10 days of purchase, to obtain
	a Safety Inspection Certificate (registration)."

I have my Application to Carry Concealed Pistols and I am trying to 
determine the most effective wording for the Reason for Desiring License.

I have been unsuccessful in getting further clarification from the 
authorities.  Between you and me, I want to be able to take my pistol
for informal target shooting, and I want to be able to take my pistol
hunting and wear a coat over my holster (the hunting regs in MI
say I need the Carry Concealed License to wear a pistol under my coat).

Does anyone have any input?  this whole ordeal has been nerve wracking,
I am convinced that the authorities are creating a market for street
guns sales, but I am really trying to be on the up and up.  Any
hints or helps would be appreciated, especially MI licensees.

Thanks, 
-- 
Chuck Hubbert	u4944@cray.com    tel# 313/574-8159
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sjo@cci632.cci.com (Steve Owens)
Subject: Re: Gun Control:  A modern, REALISTIC view.
Organization: [Computer Consoles, Inc., Rochester, NY
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:26:26 GMT

	I deleted most of the article due to space considerations and the
fact that most of those points have been discussed here before.  I'm sure
someone else will cover these points adequately.

In article <1992Nov16.085334.10791@nntp.uoregon.edu> davidw@cie.uoregon.edu (David Weingarten) writes:

>>> In England, the COPS don't even carry guns.  If somebody is 
>>> reported breaking in somewhere with a gun, they don't surround the 
>>> place with unarmed cops, they call in a special force of snipers 
>>> and pick the guy off.  It works.  Less than 20 gun deaths a year.  
>>> More than 20,000 here.  Which side of this argument looks most 
>>> reasonable? Let's get real.
>
>>on the other hand, we don't get mortar attacks on the White House either.
>>let's do get real. English styles just happen to be a bit different
>>than ours.
>
>Yeah, they're civil, we're barbarians.  I'd rather have mortar attacks
>on the White House (which is pretty damn unlikely to happen just
>because we illegalize guns) than to have 20,000 people/year get killed
>by guns.  The White House could be reinforced to withstand it.  The
>Common Man can't afford or acquire heavy-duty body armour.

	If you have a problem with 20,000 people being killed with guns
every year, what about the 440,000+ that are killed by other means?
(According to the FBI, only about 22% of all homicides are committed 
with a firearm.)  If we ban guns, are you sure these 20,000 deaths 
wouldn't be caused by other means?  I'm not.  There is a deeper problem 
at work here.  Why not expend your energies trying to fix that, instead?

>It always depresses me to find that people are actually so 
>self-deceived as to think they could overcome something as formidable
>as the US Military.  Isn't it more productive to try to work WITH
>the government?  I mean, if the government got THAT out of hand,
>you can believe that I'd be one of the first to die trying to fight
>it, but I sure wouldn't expect to win.  I'd be fighting simply as a
>matter of principle.

	In such a situation, I wouldn't be fighting to win.  I'd
simply be fighting not to lose.  It is obvious that you underestimate
the effect of guerilla tactics.  May I suggest you take the time to
do a little reading on the subject before you dismiss them out of hand?

>
>			-- David
>


						Steve


------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Read between the lines                             Steven J Owens @ CCI
 Criticize the words they're selling             (716) 482-5000 Ext 2867
 Think for yourself and feel the walls                 sjo@op632.cci.com
 Become sand beneath your feet." - Queensryche "Anybody Listening?"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sjo@cci632.cci.com (Steve Owens)
Subject: Re: Alternative RKBA Groups Needed
Organization: [Computer Consoles, Inc., Rochester, NY
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:32:22 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Nov16085831@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
><In article <1992Nov12.180624.1867@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
[....]
>
>	One hates to prick such charming naivete, but...
>
><Other prominent images are necessary
><	   so that the general public can see that it isn't ONLY the NRA
><	   that supports the RKBA, but many people - for many different
><	   reasons.
>
>	Which may well be *precisely* why NRA, GOA, CCRKBA will not
>	be allowed to run their ads on major network TV, in major
>	"news" magazines such as "TIME" and "NEWSWEEK"....the 
>	opposition isn't stupid and plays by its' own rules,

	Not to sound naive :-), but....

	If we can't use the major news organizations, why not bypass
them?  What's involved with a group of local NRA members renting a hall
and advertising an informational meeting on self-defense?  A little
$5 ad in the "What's Happening" section of the local papers could pull
a good sized crowd, to whom you present what the NRA has to offer.
Keep a list of your attendees, and have these once every couple of months.
Inform your past attendees of the event through postcards, and ask
them to bring a friend.

	Although this is a little more radical: organize a door-to-door
campaign to get the word out.  Have a bunch of the brochures that the
NRA puts out and have a short 15 minute talk worked out to present to
the homeowner.  This is more difficult, as it's more on a personal
level, but if presented properly it can be very effective.

	Hey, these ideas work for groups like Greenpeace (and they
ask for donations!  :-), why can't it work for this?

><	   The NRA has commonly used hunting as the main reason to own
><	   firearms. 
>
>	Yes and no. Read the current set of "CRIMESTRIKE" ads
>	for a new and very different approach..by NRA.

	Haven't seen these.  What publications are they in?  Why,
instead of putting these in magazines, doesn't the NRA put these on
billboards?  *Anything* to get the message to a wider audience than
simply the hunters/enthusiasts.

><So, the fed says "Fine,
><	   then you won't mind if we ban all weapons unlikely to be
><	   used by hunters.". Next thing, the anti-hunting groups are
><	   doing a great job making hunting into a great moral evil
><	   that only bloodthirsty savages would indulge in. 
>
>
>	Yes, this scenario has been pointed out not only on this
>	group, but by Neal Knox and others.

	I often wondered how people like this would react if they saw
the beef cattle they rely on for meat slaughtered (IMHO, they'd probably
become vegetarians. :-)


						Steve



------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Read between the lines                             Steven J Owens @ CCI
 Criticize the words they're selling             (716) 482-5000 Ext 2867
 Think for yourself and feel the walls                 sjo@op632.cci.com
 Become sand beneath your feet." - Queensryche "Anybody Listening?"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns