HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Getting the gun to your car and breaking the law
Keywords: law gun car
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:39:11 GMT
Organization: Dewey, Screwum & Howe, Inc.

It just occurred to me that there are a few situations where you could be
breaking the law by carrying your gun from your home to the car.  For example, 
assume you live in an apartment complex where you park your car in a common
area such as a parking garage.  The apartment itself is your "private
property" and you can have the gun without a problem.  But once you leave the
apartment and walk towards your car, it would seem that you are now illegal
unless you have a CCW.  In other words, there appears to be no legal means for
you to get the gun to/from the car unless the car is on your property. The
same holds true when you live in a detached home, but park your car on the
public street.

This information is based on the fact that you can carry the gun, locked or
unlocked, on your property, but once you leave that property, you must have
a CCW or live in a state where it doesn't matter.  Seems like a real
concern to me.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 18:00:56 GMT

>As far as fights that can be avoided, I personally agree that walking away
>(or running, if necessary) is the way to go.  How about the rest of you
>"violent gun-nuts" out there?

Avoiding violence is almost always the best course. However there
are times when this is impossible, imprudent etc. It is immoral for
a government to take away the right and the means of defense from
it's subjects. The choice of whether to capitulate or to defend is a
personal decision which should be left up to the potential victim.
Finally it should be noted that governments in general have show that
a reasonable and prudent person would not put his/her trust in any
government. The people must have the means to resist tyranny.

Personally I avoid confrontation if possible unless a higher principal
suggests another course (e.g. I stumble on a rape in progress etc.).

				mike
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Date: 9 Apr 92 06:49:03 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr8.125213.4695@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:
>As quoted from <1992Apr3.232219.8647@matilda.vut.edu.au> by db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ):
>
>> In article <1992Apr1.191304.8082@athena.mit.edu> sybok@m4-035-2.MIT.EDU (The Terminator) writes:
>> >>Probably so.  I recently watched a film on TV in which even a Catholic
>> >>priest and a communist mayor were waving guns around  -  "Don Camillo",
>> >>it was called.  What a terrible example they were setting!
>> >
>> >Did you see "Pale Rider" with Clint Eastwood?  An EXCELLENT MOVIE about
>> >a gunslinger who blows into town to clean it up; it turns out he's a priest.
>> 
>> Instead of watching these gun-slinging movies, I suggest you watch
>> a few Australian films, in order to see life in its fullest, and
>> to get a more balanced perspective on the human experience.
>
>I recommend:
>
>Mad Max
>The Road Warrior
>Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome(?)
>Road Games
>ANZACS
>The Lighthorsemen
>Gallipoli
>Breaker Morant 
>
>None of these films in any way portrays nor advocates violence in any way... 
>NOT.
>
>And those are just the ones which have received notice in the U.S.  Such
>hypocrisy and deceit becomes you....

Your choice of Australian film is very interesting. Hardly
an unbiased sample!

-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
From: nick@bcstec.boeing.com (Nick Leiterman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: right to bear arms
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:23:56 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle

> >cl231519@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes
> >>A note about the constitution and the right to bear arms:
> >>
> >>1)it guarantees your right to own a musket.(that's all thefirearms they had
> >>back then)
> 
Does this mean that the right to free speech doesnt apply to TV? ( because
they didnt have TV's back then)






-- 
     Nick Leitermann
     Seattle Washington
     nick@bcstec.boeing.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Blame the victim (Was Re: UK court approves use of shotgun)
Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 20:05:49 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.014629.18171@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.223829.14524@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>> ...  At least two Australians have taken
>>the position that if an innocent person (victim) is attacked and
>>uses force in a defense that the victim is to be blamed, and that
>>the attacker is not to be blamed.  It was also stated that the
>
>These two are saying it depends upon the type of attack. You
>are oversimplifying and you know it Henry. Nobody has said
>that the original attacker is not at fault. What we are
>saying is that the attack may not warrant force.

  If all you were saying is that some attacks don't warrant a
forceful defense then there would be little argument.  The argument
was that the Australians were saying that an attack never warrants
force (which could harm/injure/kill an attacker) as a defense and if
an attacker was ever harmed at all by a defense then the victim
should be blamed.  Then this line of argument was further "supported"
by the Australian argument that it wasn't even necessary for a victim
to try any sort of defense since the Australian police were "required"
to "prevent a crime" if they were notified.

  Essentially all of the RKBA posters have agreed that one should use
restraint in defense, and that defense with such weapons as firearms
should be reserved for situations in which it is reasonably required
to prevent death or severe bodily harm resulting from the attack.
(There have been a few isolated instances of people like Termie 
shooting off their mouths about what they feel that they "should" be
allowed to do with firearms - but IMHO even they would use great
restraint in real events, as indeed they are legally required to do
in the U.S.  Anyone who would take Termie's most strident statement 
and claim it represents the overall feeling of 1/4 billion people in
the USA is either naive or duplicitious (and a ratbag to boot!)

> ...

--henry schaffer
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Date: 9 Apr 92 06:52:12 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr08.172507.29497@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>>>
>>>>	And so he responds yet again and in the same vein.....
>>>>
>>>>	So, are you that afraid of having some beer spilled on your addled
>>>>brained pate?  Or do you like brawling for a living?
>>>
>>>I certainly wouldn't let anyone get a bottle near enough my head to
>>>pour it on me-- how do I know the guy isn't going to do something more
>>>damaging with the bottle?
>>>
>>Oh really! I suppose you worry when any one is near you. What
>>if they pulled a knife, what if they had a gun, what if they
>>were an axe murderer.
>
>I wouldn't just stand there while someone waved a knife, gun, or axe
>around my head either.  
>
>The point is that you let a hostile person bring a deadly weapon near
>your head without putting up any resistance whatsoever.  You were
>stupid, and lucky.

I don't consider beer-bottles deadly weapons necessarily. Surely
whether such objects are deadly or not depends upon their context.
In the case I was describing it was at a family picnic day, in bright
sunshine with loads of people around. Obviously one would not
act the same way in a dark alley.

I was neither stupid or lucky. I summed up the situation
and did the sensible thing.

>
>
>
>-- 
>Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
>Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
>Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
>(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)


-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Date: 15 Apr 92 04:35:12 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <brian.703289269@coombs>, brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) writes:
 cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton) writes:
< >>   Another wommin proves that she either can't read, or that she is
< >> incapable of distinguishing between being the victim of criminal assault
< >> and provoking a fight.  If she means what she says (hard to believe)
< >> then she really is saying that a rape victim shouldn't resist, but 
< >> instead just don't protect her/his "honour", swallow his/her price
< >> and let the rape proceed.  Otherwise the victim would be guilty of
< >> "provoking a fight".

< >That's EXACTLY what she's saying.  She's already explicitly said that gays and
< >minorities should "pity" skinheads trying to kill them rather than resist. It's
< >obviously her point of view that one's mere existence can be a provocation. It
< >is that sort of assumption which underlies the holocaust and a dozen other
< >egregious acts of wanton slaughter....
 
< 	Did Susan explicitly state that "minorities should "pity" skinheads
< trying to kill them rather than resist" Christopher or are you assuming 
< something which she never said?
 
< 	I think its the later.  As far as I can tell, Susan has never 
< suggested that.  What she has suggested is that indeed, people who do
< attack others because of some imagined prejudice should be pitied, _not_
< that they shouldn't be resisted.
 
< 	If you can't provide a direct quote, as someone has suggested to
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
< Dave upon occassion, "put up or shut up" Christopher.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In article <susan.702167234@coombs>, susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
< cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton) writes:
< >2) If somebody just wants to beat you up, "not getting into a fight" is kind
< >of moot advice.  Or do you think that homosexuals and minorities who are 
< >attacked somehow bring it on themselves?  Is a homosexual unnecessarily
< >provoking his assailant by BEING homosexual?  Am I inciting violence by being
< >Black?  Should I stop being Black to avoid violence...?

< 	Stop bring in unnecessary complications Chris.  We are talking about
< a brawl, you know a "fight" where it takes two or more people to tango?
< Even so, in most of the cases you cite, the person who is being picked on
< usually has, at a very early stage of the altercation a chance to walk away.
< Such bigots should be pitied and ignored, not physically fought against.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
< All that will do will inflame the situation even worse.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

'zat clear enough for you, cobber?
-- 

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: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 12:47:45 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns

As quoted from <susan.702534694@coombs> by susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald):

> >First of all, you must be pretty spineless to allow such acts to go
> >unpunished. I personally would have knocked the guy out (or teied).
> 
> 	Yep, rather proves my point now doesn't it?  Another of the boys
> who likes to talk tough.......

You sure do.  The very idea that somebody would resist a criminal assault.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian)
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date: 10 Apr 92 01:39:32 GMT

cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton) writes:

>As quoted from <1992Apr7.090454.10224@matilda.vut.edu.au> by db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ):
>> >
>> OK. Then how come the police are against private gun ownership
>> for self-defence. After all firefighters encourage people
>> to have preventative equipment.

>Most of the INDIVIDUAL officers that I've known WEREN'T.  Chiefs are in 
>POLITICAL posts who must follow the POLITICAL dictates of their superiors.

	American police "chiefs" might be political appointees.  Here, 
Police Commissioners must first come up through the ranks before being 
appointed to that position.  In addition, I believe Dave is correct, most
police officers in Australia are at least in favour of greater gun regulation.



--
Brian Ross__________________________________________________________________
	"If it is dangerous to suppose that government is always right, it
will sooner or later be awkward for public administration if most people
suppose that it is always wrong."______________________________J.K.Galbraith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens)
Subject: Re: Ann Landers
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 04:19:41 GMT

It doesn't matter what you write.  She isn't going to print it, unless
it makes gun owners look bad.

Come on, she's on the board of directors of HCI, do you *really* think
she's going to print a letter in a column over which she has total
control that represents gun ownership fairly?  I've certainly never
seen one, and I'm sure people have written to her in the past in
response to her anti-gun rhetoric.

-- 
Jonathan Kamens						jik@MIT.Edu
MIT Information Systems/Athena		    Moderator, news.answers
    (Send correspondence related to the news.answers newsgroup
	{and ONLY correspondence related to the newsgroup}
		 to news-answers-request@MIT.Edu.)
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Bomb control fails in Europe.
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:57:45 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

I just caught the tail end of the news.  It mentioned a fellow in Europe
(maybe UK?) who was on trial.  Apparently over a period of years he has
killed 2-3 dozen with bombs and injured over 300.

Now I wonder.  If gun control is so darned perfect in Europe why in the
heck don't they institute bomb control?  After all, even in the good old
'violent :-) US one doesn't have to worry about being blown up while
walking down the street.  Come to think of it, I think I'd prefer an
armed assault over a bomb.  At least you have a chance to defend
yourself against the former.

Wonder why the police don't protect the people better?

Maybe it's because bomb control isn't any more effective than gun control.
Maybe it's simply that there is a cultural bias towards blowing people
up rather than shooting them.  Any ideas?

Rick.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lairdkb@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: NRA billboards
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:57:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <1992Apr13.141225.8698@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:
>How about a picture of a Colt .45 M1911 with the caption:
>		The M1911 Doesn't Need to call 9-1-1

I don't think that's appropriate.  It suggests (to me) that if one has
a gun, he replaces the police.  I don't fully agree with that.

If, for example, someone were to break into my dwelling, I would have
my wife immediately call the police (as I brace for impact).

This is especially important in this day when so many armed, masked
intruders are police.

--kyler
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun-Free School Zones and Gun Cases
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:21:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T


In <1992Apr13.221609.5414@athena.mit.edu> The Terminator states:

|>Under the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990 (part of the Crime Control

|What's a "school"--does it include a college?

|What happens to people who *live* within 1000 feet of a school.  Do they
|have to give up their guns?

|Why didn't the NRA tell us about this?

NRA doesn't tell us, it's membership, anything when it comes to making
deals that many members would consider utterly dispicable.

Like:

(1) NRA's support for the Thurmond S. 104 Armor Piercing bullet ban.

(2) NRA's support for a bill gutting McClure-Volkmer Firearm
Ownership Protection Act safe carry provision. The bill, now law,
means that to have "safe carry" in the eyes of the law means that
you had to have legal ownership of the weapon from the point where
you got the weapon to the point of where you were taking it.

Thus, technically, a Chicago resident with an unregistered handgun
he kept at home traveling through Arizona with it would technically be
breaking the law.

(3) NRA's support of the so-called "Instant Check." Way before anything
showed up in the NRA House Organs (American Rifleman and American
Handgunner), we started seeing in the general media NRA's support
for the "Instant Check" plan. Nobody asked _ME_ if I wanted an
"Instant Check" plan.

(4) NRA made a deal with IL State Senator Willaim A. Marovitz(D),
a scumbag First Class to pile on an "Instant Check" which costs
money on top of the IL FOID card. Nobody asked me if _I_ wanted
an IL FOID "Instant Check."

We got an IL "GUN FREE SCHOOL ZONE" deal without NRA ever sending
a legislative alert out. Seems that NRA figured: "Well, since 
concealed carry is illegal in Illinois, what difference does it
make?" without any concern that many people carry concealed weapons
anyway because they fear for their life. It's those poor SOBs that
will be the victim of these GFSZ laws ... just like Don Kates points
out for manditory penalty legislation.

(5) NRA didn't oppose the Anti-Defamation Leagues pet project in 
IL, the para-military training bill. Suddenly, I see in the news
media Governor Jim Thompson (R) signing the damn bill stopping
para-military training. Did NRA send out an Alert on this? No.

Neal Knox said in the past that NRA had made a deal with the ADL
not to oppose their para-military bills in return for ADL not
actively supporting more gun control laws. The NRA leadership
at the time in the House Organs made vague references to anti-semitism
in this attack on NRA policy, clearly indicating discomfort in
the charges. NRA leadership at the time clearly was "sport" oriented
rather than "liberty" oriented.

I point these things out not to hurt NRA, but to point out that
only informed NRA members can properly keep NRA on the course of
defending and furthering the RKBA of the American people.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 17:25:07 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <1992Apr8.005951.15258@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>In article <1992Apr07.153323.8882@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>>In article <susan.702616434@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
>>
>>>	And so he responds yet again and in the same vein.....
>>>
>>>	So, are you that afraid of having some beer spilled on your addled
>>>brained pate?  Or do you like brawling for a living?
>>
>>I certainly wouldn't let anyone get a bottle near enough my head to
>>pour it on me-- how do I know the guy isn't going to do something more
>>damaging with the bottle?
>>
>Oh really! I suppose you worry when any one is near you. What
>if they pulled a knife, what if they had a gun, what if they
>were an axe murderer.

I wouldn't just stand there while someone waved a knife, gun, or axe
around my head either.  

The point is that you let a hostile person bring a deadly weapon near
your head without putting up any resistance whatsoever.  You were
stupid, and lucky.



-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA)
Subject: Re: (In)sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:10:40 GMT

In article <susan.703123520@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
>rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA) writes:

>>Your gun-control agenda would take away my final means of self-defense.

>	Who said I was interested in taking your guns away Roberta?  As far
>as I know I haven't even mentioned my gun control agenda.  Who is now
>stereotyping?  Perhaps you are presuming a lot, aren't you Roberta?

Let me refresh your memory.

In article <susan.702534881@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
>ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller) writes:

>>						I think, too, that you 
>>have to appreciate that any physical threat creates enormous stress,
>>and people under stress don't always think clearly.  In fact, those
>>people who have consciously thought about their options in advance
>>are far less likely to be affected by this sort of stress, and 
>>I'd accept as valid the claims from a number of posters that people
>>with training in any of the martial arts (including shooting) are
>>likely to be more responsible in their approach to conflict than 
>>those who are completely unprepared.  This does not imply that you
>>go through life mistrusting everyone, of course.

>	I think rather that you have made an excellent case for why NOBODY
>should be allowed a gun Geoff.  We are all subject to our emotions and unable
>to think clearly under stress.  Hence guns should be barred from everybody
>in that case.

Do you believe what your wrote, or not?  If NOBODY should be allowed a gun,
because we are all subject to our emotions and unable to think clearly
under stress, and guns should be barred from everybody, that would include
my guns, now wouldn't it?  At least "in that case" - the stressful time when
I need them for self-defense.  Therefore, you would take away my final means
of self-defense.


---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@            *
                                                    _ _ /|      *  *  *
                                Ack Pffft Thwerrp!  \'o.O'       * * *
                                                    =(___)=  * * * O * * *
Roberta Taylor  KB2OOA        | rlt@gummo.att.com      U         * * *
AT&T Bell Labs, Whippany, NJ  |                                 *  *  *
                              | Member, Unorganized Militia of     *
 NRA/CCRKBA/SAF - Life Member |    The People's Republic of        |
   GOA - Annual Member        |          New Jersey              \ |
                                                                  \| /
Would the last American to leave New Jersey please bring the flag? |/
                                                                   |/ 
@----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}   ______|______

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns