HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smpod@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan)
Subject: Re: PC and a place to shoot
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: who knows
Date: 13 Oct 1992 09:48 EDT  

bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) writes...
> ...
>Does anyone know of a range (membership or "pay per hour" based)
>in the Columbus area (I'm willing to drive for an hour) which does
>not have "semi-auto rifle" restrictions? I would certainly
>like to contribute my shooting dollars elsewhere.

Why not give a call to the Ohio Pistol and Rifle Association.  Barb Smith runs
the highpower section and I think that she lives in Columbus.  She or someone
that she knows may be able to tell you of nearby ranges.  Her number is
614-475-9336.
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: NRA Evaluation of Bush and Clinton
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:12:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education

In article <1992Oct9.093602.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:

>In article <1992Oct7.190630.28538@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, clc5q@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) writes:
>> 
>> A recent article in a Richmond, VA, newspaper said that the NRA was holding out
>> on endorsing Bush because of his past sins, and because they hope to make him
>> work a little bit for an endorsement (i.e. make some new public commitments
>> regarding gun control.)  As a result, they are working primarily on creating
>> a Congress that can resist gun control efforts by Bill Clinton while pushing
>> Bush to do something to get an endorsement.
>> 
>
>My suggestion for the NRA is to support the Libertarian Party.  Marrou could
>use an extra 3 million votes.

     A couple of points:

     A)  Supporting the Libertarians may just help to enhance the NRA's
"lunatic fringe" image

     B)  Not all NRA members are hard-core RKBA advocates (George Bush is
merely the most amusing example) nor are they all civil liberty advocates
beyond guns.  Many would consider the NRA support of a party other than,
say, the Republicans, as insulting.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:22009 misc.legal:18537
From: dont@execu.execu.com (Don Thompson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,misc.legal
Subject: Withdranw question.
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:38:39 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Distribution: na
Organization: Austin Dev. Center, Comshare Inc.

>>>From article <1992Oct6.152435.15187@eff.org>, by mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwi
n):
>> 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.
>
>>--Mike
>
>---- From me...

>How/Why does the word "people" have a different
>meaning in the First Amendment than the Second? What do you base this on?
>How do you reconcile this with the several Supreme court opinions
>stating explicitly that the term People means everyone ( more or less ).


OK. For everyone that may have missed my post or I did not make my self
clear.

I realize my mistake, admit to it, and do hereby withdraw my question.

Gee, just that one little word "if" make such a big difference!

Don

-- 
________________________________________________________________________________
Don Thompson                        |   I may be opinionated, but at least
Comshare Inc. dont@execu.execu.com  |   my opinions are my own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: NRA Ratings (was Re: 1992 Senate Races: No Contest
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:59:25 GMT



|Does anyone know how the GOA comes  up with their rating? 
  
I sometimes wonder about how NRA comes up with some of their "?"
ratings. The NRA rating chart listed Carol Moseley Braun and Bobby
Rush as having a "?" rating in Illinois.

Former Black Panther Defense Minister Ald. Bobby Rush is WELL-KNOWN 
in Chicago as being anti-RKBA; he is an exemplar of how a little
legitimate political power can corrupt a person absolutely.

Carol Moseley Braun during the Democratic Primary campaign attacked
Sen. Alan J. Dixon on the RKBA issue; so why would it be unknown the
candidate's position on the RKBA?
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing army?
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:00:20 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 14297@watson.ibm.com, mjp@austin.ibm.com (Michael Phelps) writes:
>True, the courts have found that the 1st doesn't allow you to yell "Fire" in a
>crowded auditorium.  But the 2nd amendment seems very specific -- the right
>of the people to keep and bear arms -- about who gets to keep the arms.

So, your position is that the First Amendment is not as specific as the Second.
Does this mean that you think Congress can pass laws respecting the establishment
of religion?  How do the libel and slander laws square with freedom of speech? 
I don't see anything in the First about requiring that only the truth be spoken.
The language of the First is no less clear than that of the Second.  It is just
that the courts have tended to expand our rights under the First.  The Second, 
like the Third, has been treated as something of an anachronism.  An 18th century
solution to an 18th century problem.

>|> out only by raising regular troops.  What role did the 2nd Amendment play
>|> there in defending liberty and opposing tyranny?
>
>I don't recall it being quite so clear; Wasn't the vast majority of the Southern
>troops raised from the "unorganized militia"?  Given that much of the initial
>battles were won by the South, it would seem that their quickly assembled army
>may well have been more effective than the Unions' standing army.  It would also
>seem logical that the Southerner's familiarity with the current state of the art
>WRT militia weapons had something to do with the ability to effectively use them.

The 2nd gave no advantage to the South.  If the Second guaranteed familiarity with
firearms for Southerners, then it surely did for Northerners, too.  It is true that,
if you define men of military age as the "unorganized militia," then the South
certainly drew on it.  However, all countries have such a militia without any need
for a Constitutional guarantee.  The fact is that no state required anyone to 
train for "militia duty" before the war, and new recruits still had to be trained
to use weapons and engage in war.  The original debates surrounding the Second
discussed the possibility that no person who was "religiously scrupulous" should
be required to bear arms.  My interpretation of this is that some believed the
amendment to pertain to a kind of required military duty.  A civic duty.  Something
like what you have in Switzerland today.  By the time of the Civil War, no such
civil militia had been implemented, nor has one been implemented since then.  What
happened then, and what happens now, would be largely the same without a 2nd 
Amendment.  The closest we have come to the original idea has been the large 
peacetime draft that existed in the 50s and 60s, and that was purely a federal
army.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Gun Control
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:40:15 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.194701.21152@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, pettengi@ial3.jsc.nasa.gov (James B. Pettengill) writes:
> I was watching Phil Donahue the other day, 
> his show was about the car-jacking craze
> that seems to be going on.
> 
> There was a gentleman from some gun-grabbing
> group who kept saying, "We need to get rid
> of the guns!"
> 
> He wants to implement gun control like
> Britain has.  What's the problem with this?
> What kind of gun control does Britian have?
> I'm confused, someone enlighten me, please.

As far as I know, soldiers are the only people in Britian allowed to carry
firearms.  Britian has a low crime rate, but so does Sweden, where every
household is required to have a gun in it.
--Ray Cote
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: larryd@stein.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Organization: University of Washington
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 07:02:23 GMT

grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:

>In <1992Oct13.224059.29293@u.washington.edu> larryd@stein.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto) writes:

>>grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:

>>>In <1992Oct12.195328.571@dg-rtp.dg.com> crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:

>>>>In article <1992Oct11.015308.25586@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>>>crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes ...
>>>>>>In article <BD.92Oct7104850@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>>>>stalled under Bush?  Clinton is promising to run it in reverse. Has Bush gotten
>>>>us involved in a war?  Clinton wants to get involved in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  

>>>You must not have watched the first debate.  Clinton specifically said he
>>>wants to reduce troops in Europe.


>>Maybe that is what he is saying now, but it certainly wasn't what he
>>was saying a month or so ago.  Typical Bill Clinton - if you don't like
>>what he is saying, just wait a week or so.

>>Depending on whether or not you consider the Persian Gulf a major war,
>>the USA has fought 4 or 5 wars in this century (not including minor
>>bloodlettings here and there).  Democratic presidents have taken us 
>>into the first four.

>I think the distinction between an official war and an unofficial war
>is trivial.  I do count the Persian Gulf War, as well as the Noriega
>manhunt, not to mention the myriad intrusions into Central America
>by the CIA under Ronald Reagan and George Bush.  Republicans.

Of the 5 major wars (including the Persian Gulf), the two most divisive
were Korea and Vietnam; both mounuments to the Democratic party.  The
Banana wars and Haiti don't really count as they were mostly confined
to the professional soldiers and had little overall effect on the nation.

For those that appreciate irony...Wilson was reelected in 1916 on the
platform "He kept us out of war."  Being a lame duck, he renounced this
position in 1917.  Johnson was (re)elected in 1964 running largely on
the position, "A vote for Goldwater is a vote for war in Southeast Asia."
He committed the US army in 1965.  So what's next?  Clinton commits us
to the Balkans in 93?

More irony for those that care:  The Truman administration *specifically*
exempted the Korean peninsula from the US defense sphere in a public
policy statement.  Not surprisingly, the North Koreans decided to bring
the joys of communism to the south.  

Frankly, I don't care that much for George either but the Persian Gulf
was fought for some excellent reasons.  The USA had a number of strategic
interests at stake.  Unlike Vietnam where the Democratic leadership was
not willing at first or able at the end to 1) get a declaration of war
from Congress, 2) develop any obtainable strategic goals, or 3) exercize
the will to win, George did eventually (and reluctantly) articulate an
obtainable goal, get a resolution from Congress, and successfully 
orchestrate a multinational effort to achieve those goals.  

Larry
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Privileges and Rights. (was: Re: GORE...)
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:12:35 GMT
Organization: "Well, a head on top, an arm on each side, two legs...."

In <1992Oct14.135430.13593@cci632.cci.com> sjo@cci632.cci.com (Steve Owens) writes:
>In article <lairdb.718866492@crash.cts.com> lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes:

>>Once again: there is no such thing as "public" property, only things-
>>that-are-owned-entirely-by-me, things-that-are-owned-entirely-by-you,
>>and things-that-are-owned-by-both-of-us-as-shareholders.  The majority
>>of shareholders may indeed limit what I can say or do on our mutual
>>property, by passing regulations governing it.  The original Board of 
>>Directors wisely set up a system that makes it much more difficult
>>(Ammendments) to regulate some things.
>>
>>Follow?

>	Yep.  And following this line of reasoning, all gun bans and
>the Brady Bill are unconstitutional, as they infringe upon the ownership 
>and use of my private property.

>	Sorry for such a short addition, but what more needs to be said?

Exactly.  Now (turning back to the very original question for a moment)
under this line of reasoning, it is okay for the government to  (on behalf
of the citizen-owners) regulate how fast John can drive on common ("public")
roads.  Dumb, but okay.  It is _not_ okay for the government to make rules
which regulate in any way what arms a citizen may own or bear, since this
is specifically exempted from regulation in the Constitution. 

(Incidentally, there's a whole 'nother fertile field of discussion in the
Federalist/States-rights issue, and how it affects this, but I don't intend
to get into it.  (A sigh of relief is heard from the audience.))

-- 
Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
Hi!  I'm a shareware signature!  Send $5 if you use me, send $10 for manual!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Humorous
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:54:12 GMT


From the Newsquirks of the Bloomington Voice, an very good alternative
newspaper here in town (reprinted w/o permission):

When guns are outlawed

Two police officers in Oxnard Calif., reported that while on patrol
they encountered a man who came at them wielding a live opossum, "it's
teeth gnashing alarmingly."  The officers apprehended the man after a
brief struggle, during which "the opossum broke free and disappeared
into the night."



I wonder if this goes against the BATF's ban on "self-propelled"
weapons?

-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Mayor of Dogspit, IN  #My Opinions! NotIU's! #Purveyor of
EMT-D         # Located somewhere in  # Legalize Explosives! #nontraditional
N9ISY (tech)  # the Outback of the    #I've got my own fusion#family values
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over#plant. Just ask me.   #Space For Rent
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Does This Law Make Sense
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 19:21:15 GMT

In <BvwxvH.2At@rice.edu> kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack) writes:

>	As I said, I don't know the CA law, but Texas law has a 
>   similar problem.  One can not legally have a handgun "on or 
>   about his person" (unless he's a police officer, etc.) and the 
>   courts have ruled that the glove box, back seat - basically, 
>   anywhere in the passenger compartment - is considered to be 
>   on/about ones person.  Thus, technically, there is no legal 
>   place to transport a handgun in a station wagon/hatchback, on 
>   a motorcycle or in the cab of a pickup truck, unless one is 
>   qualified under one of the exemptions in Title 10, Sec 46.03 
>   of the Texas Penal Code.  Since Texas does not have any sort 
>   of permit (CCW) system for civilians, this can be a problem 
>   if you don't have a vehicle with a trunk and the police officer 
>   decides to be a hardass.

	And you'll also note that this is not generally considered a
reason to be allowed a CCW.  The police just think you ought to openly
display your guns so you no longer have a concealed weapon.  Thus,
you can be charged with intimidating the public or some other BS law
that they feel like charging you with.  Iowa does have a permit system,
but it's incredibly difficult to get one if your sheriff is a hard-ass.

<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: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: A Brady Bill Debate
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 04:29:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.214114.10486@iitmax.iit.edu> technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Kevin Kadow) writes:
>I've got many friends who are pro-gun, and a few people I know are anti-gun,
>and from my experience the Brady Bill is perceived very differently by the
>two sides.

There is quite a bit more than perceptions here:

>	The anti-gun people see it as a "reasonable" restriction that simply
>acts as a delay to prevent "crimes of passion" and provide time for a background
>check to "keep dangerous weapons from getting into the wrong hands".

However, there is no evidence this would actually happen: California, 
for example, has a 15-day waiting period and a mandatory background
check (unless one wants to spend a day driving to Nevada, and has a
friend there willing to help you comitt a felony. Even this is 
effectively the same as a waiting period/background check, since it
delays the purchase and a friend willing to comitt a felony will 
get one around the Bardy Bill as well...) However, California cities
like Los Angelos and Oakland are among the most dangerous and highest
crime cities in the nation. Nor did crime rates decrease after California
adopted gun control laws.

Apparently, facts contradict the anti-gun people's perceptions.

>	The pro-gun people see it as an "unreasonable infringement of a 
>constitutional right" that won't stop criminals because "If they obey the law
>they wouldn't be criminals" and acts as a delay.

According to a recent BATF study, only 7% of the guns used in crimes
were purchased by the criminal from a legal dealer. The remaining 93%
were obtained in various illegal manners, none of which would be
effected by the Brady Bill.

Apparently, facts support this perception by pro-gun people.

>BTW, I have a question on the Brady Bill. If you live in a county or city where
>handguns are banned, and go to another county to buy an handgun, who gets your
>application? can your application be denied because possession of a handgun is
>illegal in your area of residence?

Which police do handle to paperwork depends on the _buyer's_ home address.
In the case you suggest, the police would deny the sale and probably
arrest or investigate you for attempting to obtain a firearm (although 
this would depend on the local law.) If you were in a different state,
the dealer wouldn't even try to make the sale. If he did, he'd probably
loose his license.

                                                      Frank Crary
                                                      CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: Gun Control
Organization: The Cat Factory
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:46:49 GMT

In article <9210132137.AA10264@leland.Stanford.EDU> miriah@loro-next.Stanford.EDU (Claire Bacher) writes:
}Gun Control !!!

Go on.  We're all waiting.  What about it?

(Good thing?  Bad thing?  Definition?)

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                   Turn the rascals out!
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483     No incumbents in '92!
Santa Monica, CA  90405
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: NSW homicides
Organization: none
	<LAMBERT.92Oct6170742@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<1992Oct7.185447.8600@csi.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 09:10:44 GMT

>>>>> On Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:54:47 GMT, mwette@csi.jpl.nasa.gov (Matt Wette) said:
> (Tim Lambert) writes:
> (Charles Scripter) said:
> > > Huh!?  19 degrees of freedom!  That's enough to least-square fit an elephant!

> > Explain to us how 19 df allow you to "fit an elephant".

> I believe this refers to the fact that if you provide enough
> parameters to a model, you can fit any data to it and claim
> "the model fits the data."

Indeed you can, but the number of degrees of freedom is defined by:
(number of observations) - (number of parameters)

i.e, for a given data set, the more degrees of freedom, the fewer
parameters.

Of the models in question, one has two parameters and the other four
parameters and a slightly worse fit.

I don't know if four parameters are enough to fit an elephant, but it's
certainly closer in that direction.

Tim
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: NRA Should Send Clinton...
Date: 15 Oct 92 03:01:19 GMT
Organization: Totally Unorganized

In article <1992Oct8.005129.913@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
>The NRA should send Clinton copies of a few books.
>
>"The Samurai, the Mountie and The Cowboy" by Kopel
>"Point Blank" by Kleck
>"That Every Man Be Armed" by Halbrook
>
>This would be a small investment considering the possible benefits
>accruing if Clinton actually took the trouble to read them.

Unfortunately, such information would only have an impact on a politician
if the politician's reason for opposing the RKBA is because they think
it will reduce crime.  Problem is, I feel that is the reason they SAY
that guns should be banned, heavily limited as to who is permitted to
possess them, which can be quite different from the REAL reason the
politician wants to remove the RKBA.

When the leaders of the anti-gun movement make remarks like "to hell
with the Constitution", or "I don't care about crime, I just want those
guns" one really begins to wonder.  I cannot believe that the Metzenbaums,
Kennedys, Bidens, etc., ad nauseum are so uninformed on the subject to
not know that gun control has a dismal record, and no real evidence as
to its efficacy in reducing crime after all this time.  Yet they still
keep trotting out the same old lines, and resort to deciet, misleading
statistics, and even outright lies to promote this aim.  IF THEY ARE
REALLY INTERESTED IN REDUCING CRIME, WHY DO THEY KEEP PUSHING MEASURES
THAT I BELIEVE THEY KNOW WILL HAVE NO EFFECT ON CRIME?  Its gotta be
some other reason, which they aren't telling us.

One has to remember, many of these power-types are very arrogant, and
view the public at large a resource to be exploited for their gain and
comfort.  Does anybody REALLY BELIEVE that Ted Kennedy, for example,
gives a hot damn about the needs of the common person?!  Any review
of the Kennedy family history ought to put any such delusions to rest,
I would think.  Likewise, is Metzenbaum concerned about Joe Shmoe, or
for his position of very considerable power, perks and influence?

Just my two cents worth.  I know, I'm cynical, after all these years,
(and its a BUNCH) I got a right to be cynical.

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp                                  (Pat Myrto),  Seattle, WA
                      If all else fails, try:
         ...!uunet!{pilchuck, polari}!rwing!pat
WISDOM:    "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket" 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns