HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: Perot
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:15:49 GMT

In article <j156368@pro-amber.cts.com> rsopicki@pro-amber.cts.com (Randy Sopicki) writes:
>Being that Perot is back in again could someone educate me as to his stance
>on gun control?

Here's my stance on Perot:

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Happy owner of a new Mitsubishi Expo.
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Leonard Levy, "Original Intent", etc.
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:39:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.191516.8260@unislc.uucp> jdw@unislc.uucp (James Warren) writes:
>From article <1992Oct6.152435.15187@eff.org>, by mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin):
>> 
>> Well, it should be noted that if the original understanding of the Second
>> Amendment was *not* to reserve a right to individuals, the word "people"
>> in the Second Amendment means something far different from the word
>> "people" in the First Amendment.
>> 
>
>What makes you think that they meant different things each time they used
>the word "people"?

I didn't say I think any such thing. Is English your first language?


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)
Subject: Re: Jackie Mason show
Reply-To: fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)
Organization: Bell Communications Research (Bellcore)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 14:35:36 GMT

Actually it was pretty good with the only ANTI being
Amy Fishers attorney setting up his defense. For those
of you who live West of NY Amy Fisher is the girl who
tried to blow her boyfriends wife away and muffed it.
So now it is falling back to the Deprived upbringing,
she didn't know what she was doing etc. 
They had a telephone poll on whether we need more gun
control laws or not and it came out in favor of NOT by
a 77-23 ratio. My auto redialer couldnt even get through.
It degenerated into a racial thing involving Washington 
Heights and other "racial" things vs the NYC police, I started
to loose interest especially once that red bereted Curtis
something got into a shouting match with the Police.
Jackie Mason may play the comedian but after listening to
the anti(amy fishers lawyer)type he shot him down in about
4 seconds and ignored him the rest of the show, shows hes
smarter than he acts, sarcastic %$#*%&$# too.
-- 
##########################################################
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.
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Re: A little on self defense (what should I carry ?)
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:32:00 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) /  7:40 am  Sep 28, 1992 /

In <4400255@iftccu.boeing.com> Rick Bressler states:

|>enforcement leaders.  I seem to recall reading in one of Ayoob's
|>books (I believe it was _The_Truth_About_Self_Defense_, a very
|>good book BTW) that, sincE Carrying "clubs" or a variety of 
|>martial-arts instruments was deemed illegal, he recommended
|>carrying a "Magna-Light" or equivalent large, metal flashlight.

>|I believe it is Detroit that has now outlawed anything over 3 cells....

>Are you shittin' us? Where did you hear that? Is it any METAL flashlight
>over 3 cells? Is the cell size specified? I noticed that LEGEND makes

I've had at least one response claiming that it was indeed Chicago and not 
Detroit. Givin your response, I'm just a bit confused now myself.  My 
original source was either the Ayoob or Farnum seminar I attended.  I'd 
have to check my notes to find out which.  They are, as recommended by 
Ayoob, securely locked in my safe deposit box, so this isn't real easy.
Hopefully the net can sort it out.  Bank hours almost dictate me taking 
time off of work to check this out personally.  

Rick.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: GORE (and it's pretty gorey)
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:26:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep22.055528.16872@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
> In article <1992Sep21.154232.27031@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson) writes:
>>Why should I need a license for a RIGHT, I dont need a
>>license to vote, write, or anything else under the con-
>>stitution. 
> 
> To be fair, you do need to register to vote. A similar registration
> system to own firearms wowld probably be constitutional. But note:
> Voter registration is easy, unrestricted and any barrier to registering
> is considered illegal. Similar standards would have to be applied for
> any gun control law.

As far as I know, you only have to register to vote so that the government can
keep track of who votes and who doesn't.  That way I can't vote 50 times in one
day.  I don't see why the gov. should know if I own a firearm or not.
--Ray Cote 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Yet further tripe from Richard Reeves
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 02:45:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.235318.43429@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>,
conley@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:

> Those studies were discussed, together with others, in the current
> issue of The American Prospect, a liberal political journal, by
> Carl T. Bogus, a professor of law at Rutgers in New Jersey. He led

Hey, you guys missed the best part!  It was a *Bogus* study... =;->

> In The American Prospect, Bogus wrestles with a paradox: Polls
> indicate that as many as 95% of Americans favor strictor gun control - 

Obviously another Bogus statistic...

> The reason Bogus collected those studies was to try to begin to begin

This guy couldn't have a more appropriate name....

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: NSW homicides
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 19:37:58 GMT

In article <LAMBERT.92Sep25211339@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au> lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
> On Thu, 24 Sep 1992 22:42:15 GMT, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) said:
>> (Tim Lambert) writes:
>>>(Andy Freeman) said:
>>>> In article <LAMBERT.92Sep19011001@cello23.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au> lambert@cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
>>>>>Wrong.  My model has two parameters (pre 1920 rate, post 1920 rate).
>
>>>> Not so fast.  Lambert's model has at least three parameters.
>
>> The choice of 1920 instead of 1921 is a third parameter.
>
>Or instead of 1915 or 1925?

Lambert may be sure, but he's wrong.  I'd have asked him to justify
his choice.  Even if it is a reasonable choice, it still is a
parameter.

>Oh, and you said "at least three".  What do you claim are the fourth
>and fifth parameters?  Or is "at least three" Andyspeak for "three"?

There's the "nothing else happened" parameter.  There's the choice of
years to ignore (or not) parameter.  We can go on.  The exact number
isn't all that important.

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

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Black Market guns
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:09:26 GMT

In article <RDH.92Sep27113913@ravel.sli.com> rdh@sli.com (or uunet!sli!rdh) writes:
>*ALL* modern center-fire (and rim-fire too) firearms (well, maybe "*ALL*"
>is too encompassing, but certainly "virtually all", including .38/.357/9mm/
>etc handguns, .223/.308/etc rifles, etc, and so forth) do in fact rely on
>the "brass" cartridge case expanding and sealing the firing chamber...

The real question is _how_ dangerous a failure to seal would be. In
revolvers and bolt-action rifles (e.g. except in semi-autos) I think
it would be only somewhat dangerous, but not likely to cause 
_serious_ injury. (Which means I don't think anyone should try this
on purpose, but also that it isn't a serious worry...)

> Yes, significant gases escapes from the cy-
>linder/barrel gap (industry standard typically .005-.007 inches). This
>gas is under tremendous pressure (for most "magnum" loads like .357/.44)
>around 35,000PSI (and very *HOT* PSIs at that), and will "erode a [very
>nasty] channel" in any human flesh nearby...

>Now maybe a finger held next to a .22LR revolver cylinder gap when fired
>may yield nothing more serious than a !YEE-OUCH! (and other more trenchant
>four-letter Anglo-Saxonisms), a nice burn/blister, and a dropped pistol,
>but any more-powerful pistol (say, .357 Magnum) will cause serious damage,
>yielding much blood.

Actually, I did exactly this the first time I fired a "real" (.357)
revolver: I was holding it with my finger about 1" from the cylinder
gap. All I got was a fairly minor burn (which is a quick way to learn
how _not_ to hold a revolver...) I don't see the risk of gas leaking
out the back of the cylinder as so great, because on a large frame
revolver, (at least the way I hold mine) the firer's hand isn't within
1" of the round fired.

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: robinson@knuth.mtsu.edu (David Robinson)
Subject: Re: Morton Grove appears in Newsweek
Organization: Dept. of CS, Middle TN State Univ, Murfreesboro, TN
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:11:04 GMT

In <1992Sep28.151539.17757@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:


>In <1992Sep25.195452.21326@cbfsb.cb.att.com> Mr. X states:
>|>The $64 question is
>|>	How can women in Morton Grove protect themselves?

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

subtle sarcasm.... however, some folks depend totally on smiley faces
rather than reading between the lines..... :-/ << for the humor
impaired.

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

>|	-Andy V.

Maybe I'm spoiled by our local E911 service where our local emergency
services can determine the location of the calling emergency by the
incoming phone number.... but I fail to see how a cellular phone can
benefit from E911.  Maybe I'm being obtuse.  Even omitting the dubious
benefits of E911, I fail to visualize a potential victim who has just
been throttled from behind snatching her cellular phone from her purse
while the attack is underway, dialing 911, gasping "I'm in the middle of
the block between Elm and Maple... on the EAST side of the street...
next to the abandoned electronics shop... whoops... he's dragged me 
into the ally.... HELP! He's dragging me into an abandoned warehouse 
SOUTH of the ally... NOW HE'S DRAGGING ME UPSTAIRS....  uh oh, now he's
noticed that I'm talking on a cellular phone... now he's asking me who 
I'm *talking* to on this cellular phone.... oh, no!  I think it's too 
late...." 
                                          vvv      

Once again, for the sarcasm impared  >>   :-)   <<      OK ?!? 
 
                                          ^^^
although the reality would be anything but funny.
 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 David Robinson                         |   robinson@mtsu.edu
 Automation Librarian                   |   615/898-2572 (voice)
 Middle Tennessee State University      |   615/898-5551 (FAX)
 Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37132          |   P.O. Box 13  (snail)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be
infringed.'                                    -- J Neil Schulman
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Outlaw Fire NOW!!!!
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:47:41 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

> Robert Thank you for clarifying that we CLEARLY
> have a NEED to outlaw FIRE as it is DANGEROUS!!!!

> Just Say NO! to Rapid Oxydation!!!!!

> one wonders if the clear connection between the
> Oxygen Kabal and HeteroSexuality and this problem
> with Rapid Oxydation....


You know that I would be untrue,
You know that I would be a liar,
If I was to say to you,
Girl, we couldn't get much higher.

Come on, baby, Light My Fire,
Come on, baby, Light My Fire,
Try to set the night on fire!


Too easy, drieux.  A fault-line straddler like you should
know that one.  While we're down this road...


What a field day for the Heat,
A thousand people in the street,
Singin' songs and carryin' signs,
Mostly say, "Hoo-ray for our side."

I think it's time we stop,
Children, what's that sound?
Everybody look what's goin' down.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
           "Remember! Arguments should be FUN!" -- Jessica McGeary
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Stupid question time
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 17:35:47 GMT

In article <6780@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>> There is already something that ensures that these legislators and
>> judges uphold the consitution.  When they are sworn in they swear that
>> they will uphold the Constitution of the United States...

>> If they don't, there are laws that deal with people who break such
>> oaths.  At the very least they should be recalled due to fraud.

>I believe the specific term is treason.  It's such an ugly word.
>I think it needs to get out more.

This is not, legally, treason: The framers were _very_ concerned about
witch hunts (of the McCarthy-era sort) so they put a very specific
limited definition of treason into the Constitution:

"Treason against the United States shall consist only of levying War
against them, or in adhering to their Enimies, giving them Aid and
Comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on Testimony of
two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

                                                Frank Crary
                                                CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: Re: A little on self defense (what should I carry ?)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:40:47 GMT


In <4400255@iftccu.boeing.com> Rick Bressler states:

|>enforcement leaders.  I seem to recall reading in one of Ayoob's
|>books (I believe it was _The_Truth_About_Self_Defense_, a very
|>good book BTW) that, sincE Carrying "clubs" or a variety of 
|>martial-arts instruments was deemed illegal, he recommended
|>carrying a "Magna-Light" or equivalent large, metal flashlight.

|I believe it is Detroit that has now outlawed anything over 3 cells....

Are you shittin' us? Where did you hear that? Is it any METAL flashlight
over 3 cells? Is the cell size specified? I noticed that LEGEND makes
a 3-AA cell metal flashlight... I wonder if that odd size was chosen
so that it could double as a martial arts instrument? Does this mean
those old sheet metal flashlights like the ribbed Ray-O-Vacs are illegal
to carry?

|Or was it Chicago?

Nope. I would have heard something if this happened... we have had City
Hall ban spray paint, public gatherings i.e. 'loitering', banned the
registration of new handguns, banned so-called 'assault weapons' without
a stinking peek from the voters of Chicago... nothing dumber than a
Chicago voter I'm afraid... a Chicago voter will take it up the wazoo
and still VOTE straight Democratic in the election...

|All those citys east of the Rocky Mountains are pretty much the same 
|to me. :-)!!!!!  

Mid-westerners move the Wickedness point to somewhere in Ohio. :-)!!!!!
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: 25 states ... .sig (Re: Full-Auto 22s manufactured by Drug-Crazed
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:00:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.172213.16811@cs.sfu.ca> troy@cs.sfu.ca (Troy Brooks) writes:
>	It's also pointless, unless you're only interested in retribution.

You are assuming that the threat of retribution (e.g. extremely harsh 
conditions in jail) will have no value as a deterent to crime.

>	At some point, all these people come out. Do you want them
>	even more bitter and twisted than when they went in? Yes, a
>	large number of convicts re-offend. I'm not suggesting that
>	rehabilitation is any kind of a science, or that it could ever
>	be 100% effective. However, the education programs and recreational
>	facilities you refer to make up a fairly small percentage of the
>	overall budget of prisons, I suspect.

The question isn't one of cost savings: It is to deter crime by the
threat of severe punishment.

But I agree some efforts towards rehabilitation would be a good idea.
What about two levels of imprisonment: One for first offenders, along
the lines you suggest, and one for repeat offenders (whom it could
be reasonably assumed will not benifit from rehabilitiation programs)
along much harsher lines.

                                                    Frank Crary
                                                    CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Bush vs. Clinton on the Brady Bill
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 04:44:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.151113.17221@icd.ab.com> kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:
>But based on their (finally) stated views 
>on the subject, this is a real no-brainer; if you care about the 2nd Amendment, 
>Bush is the best we're gonna get this time around.  (Kind of makes you
>wish the Libertarians were "players", doesn't it?)

Of course, it is exactly this logic (voting for the lesser of two 
evils) that keeps the Libertarians from being major "players."
If you really want them to be "players", perhaps you should vote for
them, instead of the lesser of two evils. 

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.conspiracy
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Subject: Re: Outlaw Fire NOW!!!!
Followup-To: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 03:34:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.144741.19379@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
- drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
- > Robert Thank you for clarifying that we CLEARLY
- > have a NEED to outlaw FIRE as it is DANGEROUS!!!!
- > one wonders if the clear connection between the
- > Oxygen Kabal and HeteroSexuality and this problem
- > with Rapid Oxydation....
- 
- Come on, baby, Light My Fire,
- Come on, baby, Light My Fire,
- Try to set the night on fire!

	The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire! 
	We don't need no water . . .  

-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  Why change Bush in the middle of a screw?     
  kossack@qvi.com  |  Re-elect George in '92!    
  +1 713 240 2073  |       
  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: craig@dimple.osf.org (Craig Peterson)
Subject: Re: Stupid question time
Organization: Hey, I'm in the mainstream, the rest are in the fringes!
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:45:14 GMT

In article <CTDONATH.92Sep25113424@rodan.syr.EDU> ctdonath@rodan.syr.EDU (Carl T. Donath) writes:
...
>Thus one reason for the second amendment: if the government stops following
>the rules (i.e. constitution), the people have the power to revolt (an
>unmentioned fourth branch of checks and balances). Read the beginning of the 
>Declaration of Independence.
>
>\-\-\ ctdonath@rodan.acs.syr.edu   Carl T Donath                          /-/-/
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>/-/-/ Information is the key to power and the key to prevent power abuse. \-\-\

There is a very important point in regards to the checks and balances
that many people continually appear to forget.

The three branches are such because there needs to be a seperation of
powers.  Each has powers to help keep everything in check and balance.

The legislative branch is to create laws.

The executive branch is to help enforce the laws by implementing their
provisions.

The judicial branch is to evalute all of the above and make sure
everything is in sync.

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.  As was pointed out
earlier, passing unconstitutional laws knowingly is treason.

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.

	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?

	They all make judgements based on these rules.  They levy
	fines, confiscate property, and some even call their judicial
	implements courts (viz. tax court).

My, oh my.  Here we have all three branches of power vested in
government agencies.

All of these agencies must be disbanded.  Their structure, function,
and history proves they are unconstitutional.

Obviously this could go on alot longer, but I've got to run.

Craig.

PS  Does this mean it's time to revolt?
-- 
Craig Peterson, n8ino	craig@mainstream.com
PO Box 1120, Merrimack, NH  03054-1120
Unless otherwise noted opinions expressed are not those
of my employers.