HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: felons
Keywords: felons
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:08:14 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <1992Nov9.183508.14711@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.153642.10302@news.yale.edu> watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt) writes:
>>
>>NPR did a story on this, claiming that felons were being "re-armed at
>>taxpayer expense".
>>
>>There is a procedure (probably in the '68 GCA) by which persons
>>disqualified from purchasing a firearm may have their rights restored.
>>There is a division of the BATF staffed to deal with such requests (hence,
>>the "at taxpayer expense" bit).  I don't know the details of the procedure,
>>but I find it difficult to believe that persons convicted of violent
>>crimes with firearms would qualify.
>
>A former felon whose civil rights are restored after incarceration may
>indeed buy firearms.  This applies to even person convicted of violent
>crimes.  The procedure varies by state, some restore civil rights immediately,
>some require a waiting period of a few years of good behavior, some never
>restore their civil rights.  Federal law states a felon may own a firearm
>if their civil rights are restored by their state, or (this part I'm fuzzy
>on) if they receive permission from BATF.  BATF publishes the names of the
>people they approve in the Federal Register.
>
>>Apparently, the latest thrust is to eliminate this administrative
>>procedure to restore firearm purchase rights.  What I haven't seen
>>is any claim that anyone whose rights were so restored went on to
>>commit a violent crime.
>
>Josh Sugarman's book "NRA: Money, Firepower, Fear" has some examples of this.
>Whether or not Sugarman is lying I don't know ...
>-- 
>Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com

-- 
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only  |
 | Midterm Countdown-Bill and the Congress have to '94 to screw it up |
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: A thought on the comming gun bans
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
	<1992Nov10.022829.10812@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
	<1992Nov10.35227.12266@ms.uky.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:13:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.35227.12266@ms.uky.edu> miles@ms.uky.edu
(Stephen D. Grant) writes:

   Yea, tell that to the victims of the DEA's confiscation policy. I
   believe it has to do wit something called the "RICO Act" ??? (is
   that right?).  At any rate, not only has land, homes, cars, cash
   and other property been confiscated by the government, but in many
   cases done so without even charging the victim with a crime, or
   even going to court!!!  In cases where local authorities (cops)
   confiscate property, the property is sold (usually for nothing at
   auction) and the proceeds go to the agency that made the bust! Talk
   about the fox in charge of the hen house.  Guess the Fifth
   Amendment takes a rest here... Evil drugs ya know...

While I honestly really do think that the civil forfeiture laws are
unconstitutional (the Supremes seem to disagree) and do violate the
fifth amendment, let us keep our muttons in order.  The arguments
against civil forfeiture is different than the arguments against
confiscation without compensation.  In the former, we are arguing that
the standards of "probable cause" are NOT sufficient to seize property
without a later charge and conviction (and, in fact, that the standard
used for seizure is even less than that needed for an arrest).  In the
latter, no crime is even alleged; property is being seized "for the
public good", and compensation is necessary.

If we lose the first (as we have consistently, to my great chagrin and
shame on behalf of my country), we need not lose the second.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak)
Subject: Peer Pressure
Originator: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 14:19:32 GMT

amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves) writes:
>In Indiana firearms are much more common, and the average citizen is
>better educated in their safe handling.  Peer pressure.  Stop the
>media from portraying firearms as evil, and instead have them
>concentrate on safe handling of them. 

Amen! All some of these people ever see are fully auto weapons that
can shoot through 1" of steel, and can "spray" bullets for 90 seconds
straight without needing to be reloaded.  Then they support bans on
"assault" weapons because they think that these guns are just like
the one TV/Hollywood shows them.  I've even met people who are so
ignorant about guns that they have even refered to "assault" weapons
as "those guns that you never have to reload". (Damn, I wish that was
true.  It would save me alot in ammo costs).

>Meanwhile, I'm going out shooting today with one of my friends, and
>I'll be drilling more safe handling practice.

Over the past 3 years I have gotten 4 Non-gun owners into shooting
to some degree, and have convinced 3 of them to also take the NRA
basic handgun course.  (all 4 bought 9mm semi-autos, 1 Taurus, 1 Ruger,
1 beretta, 1 S&W).  I have also attemted to educate people about gun
issues whenever I hear someone make a media "hype" statement about guns.

I've found that 90% or more of the time, people will change their
opinion to some varying positive degree once someone takes the time
to explain the facts behind the hype.

                                Bill Vojak
                                Bill_Vojak@stortek.com
                                NRA, ILA, CFC

------------------------------------------
Anti-Gun President, Anti-Gun Congress,
Better buy what you want BEFORE Dec 31.
----------------------------------------
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Pix of hunters using Politically Incorrect weapons needed
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Date: 11 Nov 1992 20:01:09 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <1992Nov11.075353.17091@doug.cae.wisc.edu> powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland) writes:
>[Moderator's note: This thread has entered the rhelm of
>talk.politics.guns.  I am letting Jim respond but all followup's
>regarding the banning of guns should be sent to t.p.guns.  Any such
>followups to rec.hunting will be rejected.  Posts regarding the use of
>semi automatics while hunting may be sent to rec.hunting.  tjr]
>
>>Add to the fact that "Jim the idiot" is from Canada, he is not
>>fighting the "war" that we need to fight in this country...

Perhaps a bit kinder, gentler use of adjectives might be useful...  :}

>We are not fighting a "war" up here because we have saner gun
>laws than you do. 

Maybe we need to discuss this a bit more.

>Canadian hunters have realized that an anti-gun
>lobby is not the same as an anti-hunting lobby and that allowing
>handguns and military-style weapons to be banned or severly
>restricted is not the end of the world. 

You really *must* have a different bunch to deal with.  A sizable
portion of our anti-gun lobby interesects with the anti-hunting
lobby.

Both have been caught stating that their ultimate goal was to
outlaw *all* guns and/or *all* hunting, but that they're quite
willing to start out with more modest steps.

>The cops love it as
>well. The don't have to deal with an armed population like they
>do in the States. Of course, I bet all this sounds like heresy to
>the gun-loving NRA grunts in the crowd.

The Canadian cops didn't have to deal with an armed population on
the scale of the U.S. *before* any of their gun laws were enacted.

--
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
-------------------------------------------------------
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:28:31 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Nov6.041425.24217@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:

> > No one advocates abandoning normal legal principles or common sense
> > when it comes to the RKBA.  We are not in the dark here; these are
> > established legal principles that apply in a lot of areas.
> > 
> I think you are wrong - I've seen many arguments that place the
> RKBA above all laws.  Do you think they are right?

You tell me:

 Article VI.

 Sect. 2. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States
 which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made,
 or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States,
 shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every
 State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws
 of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
-- 

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...
From: tomgift@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Gift)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: You can't fast forward through the next four years
Date: 5 Nov 92 04:39:22 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030) writes:

>As an NRA member and after asking four other NRA members I can say none of
>us received a letter endorsing Bush.Considering we were in a close state NC
>I would have expected us to get one. 

I was somewhat surprised, too.  Excerpts from the letter follow:

Dear NRA member,

...We're asking you to vote for George Bush.  Not just because George Bush
is a hunter and NRA Life Member.  Not just because he called the Brady Bill
what it is--"meaningless".  Not just because he opposed a ban on semiauto-
matic firearms owned by you and 30 million other Americans...

The choice is clear and yours alone.  If you don't mind giving up your gun
rights, vote for Bill Clinton.  If you want any hope of keeping them, vote
for George Bush...

Wayne R. LaPierre				James Jay Baker
NRA Executive Vice President			NRA-ILA Executive Director

--
Tom Gift
tomgift@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: Need Better NRA Ads NOW !
Organization: The Cat Factory
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 03:58:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.183555.29027@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:

}And if the armed people who burst in turn out NOT to be cops???

Then, by all means, defend yourself.  You may have to make a snap decision
as to who/what the invaders are.  That's what happens when the cops start
acting like bad guys.

The best defense against invading cops is to get the laws changed so they
don't do that any more.  Or, at least, make the penalties for getting the
wrong house so severe they'll do their homework and check the address
twenty times before going off half-cocked.

}That's one of the things that really gets to me these days.  The cops
}demand the privilege of being able to burst into a house heavily armed,
}wearing masks and feel justified in shooting anyone who they think is
}a threat.  And they feel that, if they happen to shoot somebody who was
}not really a threat, that they should not be tried for manslaughter.
}Cops look at cop-killers as the worst kind of criminal, yet they shoot
}people who shouldn't have been shot all the time.  Where's the justice
}in that?
}
}The FBI and the police get to respond to the danger of carjackers by
}carrying a concealed pistol but I cannot do the same.
}
}Neither of these things makes much sense to me and it seems that they
}are exactly the sort of abuses of power that the Second Amendment was
}designed to protect against.  

I agree completely.  However, pulling a gun in the face of overwhelming
force isn't the answer.  That just makes you another "unfortunate
statistic" (and gives fuel to the gun banners).  Forcing the police to do
their homework and behave like good guys in the first place, so we don't
have to wonder who just broke in our door, is what needs to be done.
Then, if the real goblins come to invade, we can concentrate on defensive
tactics and strategies as we've been taught.

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483
Santa Monica, CA  90405
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt)
Subject: Re: Re: You can't fast forward through the next four years
Originator: swatt@mickey.CS.Yale.Edu
Organization: Yale University, Computing & Information Systems
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 13:59:56 GMT


In article <4400265@iftccu.boeing.com>, bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) writes:
|> >Actually, I think the message that voters sent to Congress was "If you
|> >can win your primary, I'll still vote for you regardless of *anything*".
|> 
|> Not a flame of the person who wrote this or anything, and I may be showing 
|> may age here but: 
|> 
|> Send a message ...
|> Send a message ...
|> Send a message ...
|> Send a message ...
|> 
|> How about sending a letter?  Messages are letters, telegrams and phone 
|> calls.  If the election was 'sending' a message, it was awfully ambiguous.
|> Everybody is still arguing over what the message was.  Three million letters,
|> (one from each NRA member, for starters) would be a very 'clear message.'
|> 
|> Sorry to vent at the net, but I've just heard to much of this 'send a message'
|> crud, both here and in the media.   It's driving me nuts.... (I know, short 
|> trip...)

I keep hearing how Congresscritters do read their mail and pay attention
to it; I've seen no evidence of this in my correspondence.  My general
experience is this:  I send a letter on a topic stating my opinions;
back comes a response that appears to address my letter, but is in fact
a form-letter, or perhaps a composite of several stock paragraphs (I
know this because sometimes I've gotten the exact same reply twice).
One time I sent a long and detailed rebuttal of every point in the
reply letter and never received a response.

My impression is the letters are processed 99% by staff members, who
simply stuff some canned response in a return envelope.  There are
canned responses for the "pro" side and canned responses for the "anti"
side.  Both say vague reassuring things.

Of course, it may not help that the Congresscritter with whom I've
had the most correspondence is Sen. Christopher Dodd.

I don't disparage the effort of writing Congresscritters, but I still
believe the "message" they listen to more than any other is the election
night returns.  If you can't make your point there, all the letters in
the world won't have much effect.
-- 
  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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson)
Subject: Re: Eva Clayton bio
Organization: AC Nielsen Co., Bannockburn IL
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 15:15:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.135827.15925@rock.concert.net> bing@jazz.concert.net (Carter E. Bing) writes:
>>
>>As a Durham native, Carter is from the only place in North Carolina
>>where already-owned handguns must be registered -- in this case, with
>>the County Clerk's office.  That system has been in place since 1935,
>>well before electronic computers were invented.  Guess which North
>>Carolina city criminologists are now describing as "out of control"?  
>>
>	Out of control because of gun control or out of
>control because of the flow of drugs into this area. As you
>know the majority of crimes in this area have been the result
>of drug wars between rival dope dealers. They have been using
>a variety of automatic weapons that should be outlawed making
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>it possible for the imposition of larger prison terms for
>them.

Your ignorance is truly magnificent.  Automatic weapons have been strictly
controlled since 1934.  Evidently, the gun laws you favor have little
effect on crime.

>"Why, have you never noticed that opinion without knowledge is
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>always a shabby sort of thing? At the best is blind. One who
>holds true a belief without intelligence is just like a blind
>man who happens to take the right road, isn`t he?"  Socrates

Good choice of quote, Carter.  Perhaps you should take it to heart.
Start by reading the National Firearms Act of 1934.....


John Kapson   NRA ILA
From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Alternative RKBA Groups Needed
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:05:04 -0500

Should new pro-RKBA groups, not affiliated with the NRA, be formed and
supported ?

The NRA has a problem - a piss-poor public image. TV ads featuring a
few aging movie personalities has not changed that one bit. The NRA
has another problem - they have become identified as the sole voice
for the 2nd amendment. This makes it all too easy for groups like
HCI to demonize them and focus its propaganda campaign against them.

Consider the difficulty that HCI would have if there were a dozen
strong and vocal pro-RKBA groups out there, each with its own 
special flavor, each with its own political contacts and funding
resources. As long as NRA is the one and only 'official' voice of
the 2nd amendment, it is also a conveinent whipping-boy for the
anti-gunners. Dispersing the effort amongst a number of non-NRA
affiliated groups would make HCI nuts. Their one great-Satan would
be replaced with a host of troublesome demons. Tailor-made 
propaganda would become difficult. 

I am not suggesting disbanding the NRA or greatly reducing its funding.
What I am suggesting is that a number of different groups, providing
a number of slightly different points of view, creating somewhat
different publicity themes has merit. It de-focuses the efforts of HCI
and offers the public a greater number of pro-RKBA ideas and images.
The more images one offers, the greater the chance that a person will
find one that agrees with them. 

A few days ago, I offered an advert scenerio involving two elderly
people facing a break-in by punks. The message was "This can happen
to you if you have no personal protection". Indeed, I see the ideal
pro-RKBA ad as *not* showing people using guns, but instead showing
what happens if you don't have one. The need for a gun is *implied*
rather than stated outrightly. By using sympathetic characters in
believible situations, counter-attack by HCI becomes difficult ...
how do you suggest that Granny and Gramps should die while scummy
punks get off free ? Can't be done - if HCI wants to maintain
credibility.

Now, the NRA would never fund such an ad - no matter how effective
it would be. They are stuck on 'traditionalism' and have been so
badly hurt in the PR department that they could never risk a radical
approach. However - other groups ... well apart from NRA ... could
do such ads. At the price of video equipment these days, a broadcast
quality tape could be made for peanuts. Knee-jerk anti-NRA might
listen to an alternative group ... and negative reactions could not
be legitimately directed against NRA. A winning strategy.

-- Jim Mason
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: NBC, CBS news reports
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 03:40:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.151437.3706@stortek.com> vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak) writes:
>On another note:  Here in Colorado, a State Trooper was killed this week
>while on a "routine" traffic stop.  The Trooper had stopped a car with
>two high school sophmores in it.  The car was stolen, but the Trooper didn't
>know it.  He was killed by the kids while sitting in his car, writting
>a warning ticket to the driver.  He was shot once in the side of the head.
>Police ID'd the suspects when they looked at the name on the ticket, which
>was still on the officers clipboard.  The DA is strongly leaning towards
>asking for the death penalty.  I hope he does.

According to today's paper, they will be tried as adults. However,
Colorado law apparently forbids the death penalty for anyone under
18 (even when tried as an adult). The will face a _minimum_ sentence
of life in prison. (Which honestly sounds like a waste of time and
effort to me: A death penalty would probably be kinder...)

>Better buy what you want BEFORE Dec 31.

Actually, I think before 3 November would have been better. I understand
the prices on military-style semi-auto rifles started going up a
month before the election, and I suspect the price of other non-hunting
weapons are/will follow. In this respect, I didn't do too badly: I
got my Glock on 30 October... 

                                                Frank Crary
                                                CU Boulder
From: ehorne@zeus.calpoly.edu (Eric T Horne)
Subject: Gun Control and the people who love it
Summary:  GUN CONTROL POLL
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 03:54:05 GMT


Well, I have been reading the news group for a short (but not too
short) time, and have seen several arguments against gun control.
My questions to you is:

  How much control should the government have over you owning and
  operating ANY gun/weapon (including tanks, B-2 bombers, etc)

  What is the appeal of pro-gun controlers? I mean, why are you PRO
  gun control (if you are, that is)? What do you feel it will
  accomplish?

  What is the appeal of anti-gun control (same questions as above, but
  for anti-gun control)?

I think it would be interesting to see what people have to say about
this without having someone else fight back about their position..
Try not to let others influence your opinion, because that is what I am
most interested in (your opinion, that is). 

I'll start (what a novel concept :0)

1) 
	I don't think the government should have ANY control over the ownership
	of ANY gun/weapon. However, I think that the government does need to
	control, in a limited but effective way, the use of those weapons (ie,
	you shouldn't be allowed to kill someone with a gun, etc)

2)  N/A

3)  I think that this will result in a more secure environment, one which
	 will allow young girls to walk the streets at night with reasonably
	 security. I also think that it enforces the unwritten Fourth part
	 of the Checks and Balances System. It may even lead to a place where
	 less money is spent on the defense of citizens and borders and more
	 is spent on education. (maybe, mind you!)


So lets hear what you have to say!

(if I get enough e-mail stuff, I'll post results.. feel free to mail me
your response, or just post it here if you want to. It doesn't really 
matter.. my e-mail address is ehorne@polyslo.calpoly.edu)

-Eric
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The Rush Blimp?
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:13:56 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


Re: people in LA having a gripe with the government for failing to
provide police protection

Wrong.  Section 845 of the California Tort Claims Act shields the
police and the government from legal action.

Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-A  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
----------------------------------------------------------------
"...I am opposed to all attempts to license or restrict the arming of
individuals...I consider such laws a violation of civil liberty, 
subversive of democratic political institutions, and self-defeating
in their purpose."
        - Robert Heinlein, in a 1949 letter concerning "Red Planet"
-- 
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns