HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)
Subject: Re: Pistol Permits in NYC
Reply-To: fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)
Organization: Bell Communications Research (Bellcore)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 02:26:56 GMT

I don't know about the pistol service but they are
a LARGE multi state chain that at one time had 
stores in NJ>PA>NY>CT and only recently moved out
of NJ. I bought a lot of stuff there over the years
and never had any complaints. usually had a good
stock. I would guess yes as all the sales people
in the NJ and PA stores were cops working part time,
not sure if that is still true or not.
-- 
##########################################################
There are only two types of ships in the NAVY; SUBMARINES 
                 and TARGETS !!!
#1/XS1100LH	#2/10/10/92
Richard Pierson E06584 vnet: [908] 699-6063
Internet: fist@iscp.belcore.com,|| UUNET:uunet!bcr!fist  
#include <std.disclaimer> My opinions are my own!!!
I Don't shop in malls, I by my jeans, jackets and ammo
in the same store.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030)
Subject: Re: Armed bobbies in England
Organization: BNR, Inc. Research Triangle Park, NC
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 11:38:28 GMT

 >paul goffin wrote:
>Our police all carry radios, we have "instant response" armed
>teams (often a particular patrol car has a gun safe in the boot
>(trunk)), helicopter patrols etc.....
 
 Gee, they have had strict gun control since around 1920. It really
 seems to be working well. None of the criminals can get guns and 
 there is no violence in the streets.
 
   Myron Petro
  NRA, USPSA 


 ***************************************************************

 The opinions included in this post are my sole responsibility.
 And are protected by the First Ammendment and guarnteed by the 
 Second.   
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: NSW homicides
Organization: none
	<1992Sep24.224215.20522@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<LAMBERT.92Sep25211339@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<1992Sep26.193758.11315@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:38:41

I thought that Andy's problem was that he could not add together 1 and
1.  It turns out that he doesn't know the meaning of the word "parameter".

>>>>> On Sat, 26 Sep 1992 19:37:58 GMT, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) said:

> There's the "nothing else happened" parameter.

Andy, please look up the word "parameter" in a dictionary and try to
post something sensible next time.

> There's the choice of years to ignore (or not) parameter.

Andy implies here that the years chosen for the analysis (1911-30)
were chosen to give the model a better fit.  This is not true.

> The point is that Lambert both misrepresents his model's simplicity
> and the meaning of that simplicity.

Do go on Andy.  How have I misrepresented the meaning of that
simplicity?

Tim

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,misc.legal
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: FAQ for this group?
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 05:19:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct06.023743.102601@zeus.calpoly.edu> ehorne@zeus.calpoly.edu (Eric T Horne) writes:
>  I was wondering if:
>

No.

>  1) There is a FAQ for this group?
>  2) Is there an FTP site that contains any of the previous discussions

The anonymous ftp rkba archive is located at:

	archive.cis.ohio-state.edu:/pub/firearms/politics/rkba

Get the file INDEX first to find what you are interested in.  There
are about 150 files in the rkba archive now.  The archive will soon
move to another site with more free space.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: bill@tesla.eedsp.gatech.edu ()
Subject: Grrr! _Atlanta_Constitution_ vs. NRA
Organization: Georgia Tech
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:08:39 GMT


[Forwarded from a local newsgroup to t.p.g - I figured the interest
would be there, too]

The Atlanta Constitution had control over last Sunday's (9/27) editorial
pages.  In it, they took a scathing, factless attack upon the NRA.  No
real surprises there, eh?  Cynthia Tucker apparently has a personal
agenda which includes regular snipings at the NRA but her real reasons
remain her own.

[Cynthia Tucker is the editor of the Atlanta Constitution's editorial
pages]

I took the time (about an hour, really) on Sunday night to redress each
innuendo and each attack.  I went through, point by point and rebutted
each assertion made against the NRA.  When it was in final form, the
letter comprised about three paragraphs.  I checked and rechecked my
letter to be sure that my ducks were all in a row and then I faxed
the letter to the fax number given for letters to the editor.

Each day since Sunday, I've dutifully picked up a copy of the AC to see
if my letter had appeared yet.  It finally appeared today.  Now, on to my
beef.  The letter printed in today's Constitution (how ironic, that
name!) was a completely gutted version of what I had written.  The
editors at the Constitution had removed each of my rebuttals and simply
printed a portion of my last paragraph.  The thrust of my letter had
been diverted from one of pointing out the Constitution's "liberties with
the truth" to something different.  No doubt, they would claim that there
were "space constraints" and that was why the entire letter (or even a
substantive portion) had not be printed.  Odd how "space constraints"
come into play on letters such as mine!

To top it all off, there is yet another attack upon the NRA (and by
extension to the Second Amendment) in today's editorial pages.  It is
a piece on the Brady Bill, yet it is unclear and apparently contradictory
in itself.  In one sentence it speaks of the "defenders of constitutional
rights," yet in the very next sentence (and throughout) the editors appear
to have not even the slightest inkling of what the U.S. Constitution is
about, except possibly the First Amendment.

Bias?  You be the judge.  Messenger or organ for propaganda?  You decide.

Still, it amazes me that a group who make their very livelihood and careers
from a right guaranteed in our U.S. Constitution seem to stop their reading
of that timeless and wise document at that very point that their own pet
right is safely in the bag.
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"War is an organized bore." - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (via M*A*S*H)
                Bill Berbenich - School of EE, DSP Lab
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: troy@cs.sfu.ca (Troy Brooks)
Subject: Re: THE LAW OF RETRIBUTION
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:15:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.190506.1424@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
		[Much wacko stuff deleted...]	          
>          
>                            THE LAW OF RETRIBUTION
>          
>               This LAW of the Universe is just as real as the physical 
>          law that for every action there is an equal and opposite 
>          REaction. 
>    
		Uh-huh...

>               Anyone who doubts the FACT of REincarnation, and the 
>          related "Law of Retribution", should read books such as "HERE 
>          AND HEREAFTER", by Ruth Montgomery, which describes several 
>          kinds of evidence supporting REincarnation, including 
>          HYPNOTIC REGRESSION to past lives, SPONTANEOUS RECALL  
>          (especially by young children, some of whom can identify 
>          their most recent previous relatives, homes, possessions, 
>          etc.), DREAM RECALL of past life experiences, DEJA VU 
>          (familiarity with a far off land while traveling there for 
>          the first time on vacation), the psychic readings of the late 
>          EDGAR CAYCE, and EVEN SUPPORTING STATEMENTS FROM THE 
>          CHRISTIAN BIBLE including Matthew 17:11-13 (John the Baptist 
>          was the REINCARNATION of Elias.) and John 9:1-2 (How can a 
>          person POSSIBLY sin before he is born, unless he LIVED 
>          BEFORE?!).
>	
		I see cow mutilations are up, too...
>
>                                   Robert E. McElwaine
>
>		
		Whoops! How did I get into talk.totally.out.to.lunch?

Troy Brooks
troy@cs.sfu.ca



Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Stupid question time
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:55:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.214514.1335@osf.org> craig@dimple.osf.org (Craig Peterson) writes:
>The MAIN POINT I want to make here deals with every major government
>agency I can think of.
>The IRS, BATF, OSHA...  All:

>	They all exist under the executive branch.

Technically, their regulatory powers come from Congress.

>	Make their own rules of guidance (SOPs) which is the sole
>	responsibility of congress.  Granted, there needs to be some
>	interpretation.  However, congress has repeatedly left just
>	about everything up to the agencies.  After all, the people in
>	these agencies are the experts.  Who are we to tell them
>	what/how/where to do things?

The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can not delegate it's law
making powers. However, they also accept a "legal fiction" that 
such agencies don't really make laws: If Congress establishes a
law with specific guidelines, a regulatory agency can fill in the
details without technically "making law". For example, Congress
might regulate all "easily concealed" firearms, and leave it up to
the BAFT to fill in the details of what constitutes a "easily concealed"
weapon. This sort of legal fiction really falls apart if you take
a close look at the guidelines established by Congress: "Vague" would
be a charitable description...

>Obviously this could go on alot longer, but I've got to run.
>PS  Does this mean it's time to revolt?

No, there are peacefull, legal means to abolish regulatory agencies
(I think doing so is a major part of the Libertarian Party platform...)
Armed revolt should not be considered before all reasonable, peacefull
means have failed.

                                                Frank Crary
                                                CU Boulder

From: m_martin@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Mark Martin)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 18:04:59 GMT
Subject: Re: Federal law enforcement agent
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

Well, you certainly spell well enough to be a cop. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Privileges and Rights. (was: Re: GORE...)
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:22:23 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep28.141046.727@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson) writes:
> One of the things thats intriqued me is the method by which
> a criminal[Felon] can have his second ammendment rights amongst 
> others removed but still retain other rights. If I am correct
> a convicted felon looses his/her right to: Vote, Firearms,
> Property ownership, public office. Is this true or false.
> And if so where is it written that your constitutional rights
> can be revolked. 

The 14th Amendment says that your right to vote may be denied
for participation in rebellion or other crime.  The 13th says that
involuntary servitude may be invoked as a punishment for crime.
Other than these two references I cannot find any explicit language
in the Constitution that says that the government has the right to
abridge any other rights as the result of a crime.  That isn't to
say that I think it would be better if it didn't.  Certainly it makes
no sense to allow prisoners to be armed, etc.  Indeed, the language
in the 13th and 14th seems to take it for granted that any number of
your rights may be abridged or denied as a consequence of a criminal
act.
-- 

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
From: bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula)
Subject: Re: Stupid question time
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:37:22 GMT

In article <6829@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
> [Much deleted for bevity]  I asked her, "What
>happens if they find you guilty -- do they send you to IBM Jail?"

Nope, they permanently revoke your IBM cafeteria privileges. The
only worse thing I can think of offhand is to have your AT&T
cafeteria privileges revoked :-).
-- 
==========================================================================
              Disclaimer: These are my views, not the U's

        "If it's in the paper it must be true!" --- D. Doright 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Clinton Joins Arkansas Police Criticism of Bush For Blocking Brady Bill
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 01:55:37 GMT

watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt) writes:

> ron@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ron Miller) writes:

>|> 1. Doing the background check costs money.
>|> 2. The BC via computer won't take long. (basically waiting for NCIC uptime)
>|> 3. BC via anything more will cost a LOT more. (and won't often be done)
>|> 4. I would expect clearing a weapons purchase to be the last thing the PD 
>|>    wants to do quickly. (and hence will NEVER beat the deadline by matter
>|>    of policy)
>|> 5. The PD wants to take the maximum amount of time to discourage purchases.
>|> Consequently, I expect that it will be a rare case that gets cleared
>|> earlier than the waiting period and it will probably be common that
>|> the BC's are decoupled from delivery of the firearm due to the 
>|> low  liklihood of catching any bad guys and the optional nature of
>|> the clearance. 

>Thus the "waiting period" is in effect a "slop factor" for the
>authorities to get around to doing the check.
>I suspect local departments have a "clear all the forms every monday"
>policy, or something similar.

	I had a rather pleasant experience last tuesday.  I applied for
a permit to purchase handguns, which in Iowa has to be renewed every year,
costs $5, and requires a nationwide and state-wide background check.
The police are allowed three days to perform it.

	The nationwide results were back inside of five minutes, but
the state network was down (couldn't even register my truck at the
DMV, in the same building) so I had to come back later.  Thursday I
returned and was given my permit.

	If it only takes five minutes in a state like Iowa, how hard
can it be to make an instant check?  Not very, I suspect.

	The only down-side to this is that the sheriff hands out CCW
on a discretionary basis, and I was flatly told that I would not get
one unless I had a specific reason.  Self-defense doesn't count unless
you've been accosted already.  Forget pro-active measures, here you
have to prove you will need it, and then they can simply say, "Well,
he's breaking the law so we'll bust him."  Yeah, right...

	The sheriff is up for re-election.  I'll be talking to his
opponent this weekend.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Stupid question time
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:48:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.214514.1335@osf.org>, craig@dimple.osf.org
(Craig Peterson) writes:

> Everyone in every branch is to ensure that everything is done in line
> with the consitution.  At least the heads of each of these branches
> swears that they will defend the constitution.  Everyone in the
> judicial and legislative branches take this oath.

Just a small point here:
	                    Article VI
	     [3] The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
	Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and
	judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several
	States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this
	Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a
	Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

ALL officers of the several branches (State governments, too!) are required
to take an oath to uphold the Constitution.  You could impeach a person at
any level for failure to uphold the Constitution (i.e. your local Prosecutor,
Judge, Police....).

-- 
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
From: fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)
Subject: Re: Privileges and Rights. (was: Re: GORE...)
Reply-To: fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)
Organization: Leave The %$^*&#$@#$ Bylaws ALONE !!
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 14:10:46 GMT

One of the things thats intriqued me is the method by which
a criminal[Felon] can have his second ammendment rights amongst 
others removed but still retain other rights. If I am correct
a convicted felon looses his/her right to: Vote, Firearms,
Property ownership, public office. Is this true or false.
And if so where is it written that your constitutional rights
can be revolked. 
-- 
##########################################################
There are only two types of ships in the NAVY; SUBMARINES 
                 and TARGETS !!!
#1/XS1100LH	#2/10/10/92
Richard Pierson E06584 vnet: [908] 699-6063
Internet: fist@iscp.belcore.com,|| UUNET:uunet!bcr!fist  
#include <std.disclaimer> My opinions are my own!!!
I DONT CARE IF I SOUND CONFUSED, I KNOW WHAT I MEAN !!!
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:27:18 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <83912@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>The logic of the whole thing escapes me, but I am
>beginning to lose interest in pursuing it.  

Why, losing the argument?  :}

>The "militia" is anything you want it to be, 

No, it's quite clearly outlined in a couple of sources. Title X,
Section 311, isn't it?

>but the "RKBA" has a single, rigid, obvious meaning. 

Right, a final check on abuse of power by the Federal government.
(Isn't that what you mean?)

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt)
Subject: Re: Clinton Joins Arkansas Police Criticism of Bush For Blocking Brady Bill
Originator: swatt@mickey.CS.Yale.Edu
Organization: Yale University, Computing & Information Systems
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:09:10 GMT


In article <viking.718077337@vincent2.iastate.edu>, viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
	...

|> 	The only down-side to this is that the sheriff [Iowa] hands out CCW
|> on a discretionary basis, and I was flatly told that I would not get
|> one unless I had a specific reason.  Self-defense doesn't count unless
|> you've been accosted already.  Forget pro-active measures, here you
|> have to prove you will need it, and then they can simply say, "Well,
|> he's breaking the law so we'll bust him."  Yeah, right...
|> 
|> 	The sheriff is up for re-election.  I'll be talking to his

In Connecticut, the standard form asks your reasons for wanting a permit,
but the governing statues do not enumerate permissible reasons.  If you
answered something like "so I can rob banks", the denial would no doubt
be upheld.  I do know of one person who answered "to exercise my constitutional
right to keep and bear arms" (wish I'd thought of that).
-- 
  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: gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Brady Bill squashed and other news
Keywords: Brady, Good riddance
Date: 3 Oct 92 07:21:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In <viking.718078304@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>It's official.
>	Today, while listening to the radio, I heard the crime bill
>failed to get past the Senate.  Part of the crime bill was the
>Brady Bill.  It was not at all suprising to hear only a quote from
>the sponsor stating that the bill was about guns (he even spelled
>it, possibly to prove that he did indeed graduate the second grade)
>and the power of the NRA.

I flipped on C-SPAN the other night and according to Joe Biden,
the only important part of the Crime Bill was the Brady Bill, and
that the whole reason it was being held up was Republican rejection
of "reasonable and sensible gun control" (I'm *really* sick of that
phrase) and the NRA "gun lobby". I only wish the NRA were as devious
and effective as Joe thinks, or the Republicans as loyal. It was
a darn close call from where I sit.

>  The reporter on the radio referred to
>the bill as requiring a nationwide waiting period, and specifically
>did not mention anything of a background check.

Yeah, figures. Local news here carried lots of coverage of Jim Brady's
press conference slamming the legislators. 

>	Since this wasn't mentioned, I suspect a background check
>was still not mandated in the bill.  BTW: the bill was defeated
>due to a Republican fillibuster, something you might want to look
>for when determining which senator to vote for in upcoming elections.

I have mixed emotions. Newt Gingrich for instance is a good
voter on gun issues, but this is the same doofus who viciously
attacked his fellow congressmen over the house banking thing and
then turned out to have bounced more than a few himself.
Single-issue voting is not necessarily a Good Thing (tm).

-- 
The War on Drugs is just part of the War on the US Constitution. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: djr@niwot.scd.ucar.edu (Dave Rowland)
Subject: Re: Morton Grove appears in Newsweek
Organization: Scientific Computing Divison/NCAR Boulder, CO
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:43:17 GMT

In article <2926884692.8.p00056@psilink.com> "Faustus" <p00056@psilink.com> writes:
>>DATE:   28 Sep 92 14:28:06 GMT
>>FROM:   lm8637@tnessd.sbc.com
>>
>>In article <2926715601.5.p00056@psilink.com> p00056@psilink.com (Faustus) writes:
>>>Strange.. I am receiving the most interesting email claiming my flame
>>>of persons is unjustified.. Possibly correct, but as far I am concerned
>>>it is time to jump down the throats of anti-gunners. 
>>
>>         Well shucks, Faustus.  You DID come down a little hard on
>>        a poster whose position concerning RKBA is well known to
>>        anyone with the time to read T.P.G. even a little bit.
>>         I share your "hot under the collar" attitude WRT anti-
>>        2nd ammendment hose-heads, however, in this case you shot
>>        the wrong guy. {B^)
>
>Sorry, one and all... 
>
>	Faustus
>


Gee, I guess it was a good thing he wasn't armed! :-)




Sorry about that guys but I just couldn't resist!  OK, OK, so I
didn't try very hard, so shoot me!




Alright, I'll shut up now.




--
|"Novell is like Denny's, you | Almost live from the institute  | Hi    |
|don't go to Denny's, you end | that brought you Nuclear Winter,| Greg! |
|up there." -- R. Ingraham    | Wind Shear and Global Warming!  |       |
|        Dave Rowland at NCAR Boulder, Colorado  djr@ncar.ucar.edu      |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns