HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: A Gun in Hand is Worth Two in the Bush (something like that)
Date: 11 Jan 1993 22:10:20 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <9301101246.30@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

> First, the most common home defense weapon in Mass is probably a long gun.
> The purchase of a shotgun/carbine and ammo requires a FID card.  The FID
> card is very easy to get, unless you have been in a mental hospital during
> the last five years or have been convicted of a felony in the last five years.
> It is not subject to the whim of police chiefs, and is just a minimal
> application that gets processed by a computer.

Ignoring the fact that negotiating your home passageways with a long
weapon is less than deluxe, consider that they are more deadly to an
intruder, more deadly to people in adjacent homes or apartments, and
MUCH more difficult to secure (in any state of readiness) in a home with
children than any handgun.  

Another sterling instance where gun control keeps the common citizen 
safer... not.

> >       If the Second Amendment to the Constitution does guarantee the
> >right to keep and BEAR arms, then, according to Article VI and the
> >14th amendment, the law prohibiting carry carries no legal force
> >and is not legitimate.
> 
> Ok.  So what is the RKBA gun lobby doing to rectify this disparity
> between the US Constitution and the state laws?

Does this imply that you are not a member of the NRA?  Perhaps you
should pony up the $25 and find out, firsthand, every month.  Most
recently, the NRA was challenging the California gun ban in the 9th
Circuit, but decided for political reasons to throw their weight into
a different lawsuit that is not only a much cleaner case of impermissible
state restriction (without any complicating technicalities on which a
decision could be based without having to address the core question)
but is one that the Supreme Court is more likely to agree to hear.
(I have the name of the case in a letter at home, but not here.)
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...

From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 05:46:06 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) / 10:54 am  Jan  1, 1993 /
bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:

>everything.  I have little doubt that in the right social climate,
>consideration of organ harvesting could become a triage parameter.
>
>This "gimmie, gimmie, gimmie, something for nothing" wellfare state
>we've allowed to happen is quite conducive to such antics.

And it could get worse.  Lets say that executed criminals have no right
to their organs, or just make the 'default' that organs are
automatically donated unless the donor objects.  Criminals executed by
the state will then be viewed as organ farms.  As transplants continue
to become more and more an every day occurrence, (Boeing's medical plan
is now covering many of the more common transplants, for example) we'll
the demand for the death penalty for jay walking....  This scenario has
been explored in many fictional works.  It appears that it is coming to
pass.

Rick.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:05:33 GMT

In article <16B4AEE80.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
|> In article <9301021327.48@rmkhome.UUCP>
|> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

|> >>> In Arizona, I believe, there is now a move to restrict the current laws
|> >>> that allow children to carry concealed weapons, as many parents are
|> >>> concerned that it has become fashionable for junior high students to
|> >>> carry concealed weapons.
|> >>
|> >>Really.  I was under the impression that in Arizona it's not legal to
|> >>carry a weapon concealed at all.  Check your facts.
|> >
|> >Yes, you're right.  They can carry - not concealed.  I personally don't
|> >feel that 12-14 year old kids have the maturity to be packing guns
|> >wherever they go.
|> 
|>         Some are.  Some aren't.  Most probably aren't.

I find this personally amusing.  I grew up in Arizona several decades ago, in
several different rural areas, and we kids brought (*gasp*) guns to school,
regularly.

In the 5th grade, in particular, I had a teacher who loved hunting doves.  In
season, the boys and girls in his class would bring in our personal shotguns,
most of us riding on the school buses, and go dove hunting before class in the
millet fields across the road from the school.

During class, the shotguns were stored in the coat rack.

On other occasions, guns were brought for show-and-tell, and plinking or target
practice before school, during lunch, and after school.

This public school had a 50 year tradition of such things, and not once, during
that entire time, was there an "incident" of any sort, nor any accidents.

I stopped by, eight years ago, just for old times, and they're still doing it.

You'll excuse me, I hope, if I don't broadcast the school's name - I'd hate to
sic the liberal education establishment on them.

-- 
Kirk Hays - NRA Life.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
do nothing."  -- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:18:34 GMT

In article <9301021347.42@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>In article <0tsrqk_@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:

>
>So, do you carry a gun 24 hours a day?

Do you?  Knowing John, I'd say probably, but it's rather bad form to
give away elements of your personal defense plan.

>>I should note in passing that with the exception of Atlanta,
>>Georgia has one of the lower crime rates in the nation.  I should
>>also note that until last year when we defeated it in court, Fulton
>>County (atlanta), the FBI's 2nd place murder capital of the nation 
>>HAD a waiting period.  Is the crime rate a coincidence?
>
>Does everyone in Atlanta carry a gun now?

Here in Indiana where we have non-discretionary permits, a lot of
people do.  Estimated around 10%.  I cannot think of any incident here
where a legally carried gun has been used in the commission of a
crime.  I don't know of any mass murders we've had.
We do have a very low crime rate here though.  For the longest
time the biggest thing folks talked about was the lady who killed her
hubby by dropping a bowling ball on his head while he slept.  Multiple
times.  Every year the parents run an ad in the local paper in
memorium.  As a matter of fact I have the ad here in front of me (it
was in yesterdays paper).  I believe she was acquitted.

-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Chief of Tranquility  #My Opinions! NotIU's!#Purveyor of
EMT-D         # Base, Lawrence Co. IN # Legalize Explosives!#nontraditional
N9ISY (tech)  # Somewhere out on the  # Politicians prefer  #family values
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over# unarmed peasants.   #Space For Rent
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: Time-Warner
Organization: The Cat Factory
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:36:01 GMT

In article <lk48gfINN5it@news.bbn.com> gonzalez@BBN.COM (Jim Gonzalez) writes:

}... It's been reported on the internet mailing last that the latest Batman,
}produced by Time-Warner's DC comics, has a story including Virginia gun
}runners and "assault weapons".  It was today reported that the Virginia 
}governor is distributing it to legislators, in support of his latest 
}gun control proposals.

People voted for (and elected!) a man who uses fantasy cartoons in place
of facts and thinks they're a valid basis for law making?  The mind
boggles (and J.D. Quayle looks scarier by the minute).

Small wonder the country's going to hell in a handbasket. )-:


The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                "If you can't stand solitude,
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483  perhaps others find you boring
Santa Monica, CA  90405                        as well."  -- Mark Twain
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:42:12 GMT

In article <9301092018.07@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>Define "fair, effective, and non-intrusive".  Obviously, all laws can be
>abused.

No sweat. In the context of the current debate:

fair:  applied to all adult non-felons in all jurisdictions without regard 
to race, income level, or political affiliation.

effective:  successfully addresses the problem (assumed here to be violent 
crime.  To be effective, it must result in a drop in violent crime.)

non-intrusive: does not require a active proof by the individual that they 
can qualify, but requires the state to prove that they do not.

Can anyone add anything?  This came off the top of my head.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: "Ethics" Courses, etc. & the R.T.K.B.A
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 21:05:37 GMT

In article <92366.170343GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Shooting Club at ASU <GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET> writes:

>Has anyone else tried a different tact in eliciting interest in the
>Second Amendment ?   We are amazed at the indifference
>with which the Second Amendment is held here at ASU.  We are not talking
>about international students, but incoming ex high-school seniors who
>supposedly had a 'Civics' class in their junior or senior year.

       'Civics' (which is also called American Govt. in a lot of places)
isn't, in my opinion, a very good place to learn about how the government
either A) Actually Works or B) should work.  I'm not sure what you
should expect, though, considering the courses have to meet "minimum"
government requirements.  There's a lot of misinformation there.
       The only time I got involved with a gun issue in philosophy
was in Phil. 110, and we started out talking about how langugae works.
(The instructor used the phrases 'He's got a gun.' 'He's got a gun?'
and 'He's got a gun!' to illustrate how punctuation has an effect on
how people use and percieve language.)
       Anyway, he didn't seem to have a particular problem with the
RTKBA (which might be something to expect from a Texan living in
East Tennessee) but the rest of class did, especially the Psychology
students, which made up most of them.

>How are college level students learning firearm marksmanship, safety
>and basic Constitutional issues like this at your schools ?

        UT's probably got a fair number, although it's all off campus,
since State law prohibits any civilian carrying a firearm on campus.
(BTW, combine this with a nonexistant police presence after dark and
student parking lots a minimum of ten minutes walk from classes through
unlighted areas and you've got a mugger's paradise.)
        But then, people have always carried guns around here.  If it
wasn't for the liberal metropolitan two thirds of the state (who
steal all our tax money) we'd probably have more liberal gun laws on
our campus and maybe we'd see some actual discussion.
        Schools often (either by law or policy) prohibit weapons in
general and firearms in particular.  As a result, a lot of academics
(and you don't meet many non-academic philosophers) don't come into
contact with them on anything resembling a regular basis, and it
just doesn't enter into their minds.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Re: I'm sorry for confusing Bartz with Betz
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 20:22:22 GMT

In article <1ilgijINNa89@flash.pax.tpa.com.au> anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au writes:

hi susan!

>I give my sincere apologies to Chris Bartz for libeling him by confusing
>him with Andrew Betz.  It was Mr. Betz and and not Mr. Bartz who
>replied to my posting and said:
>
>>the flag-burning issue is tripe, but if you can bring down opponents
>>of gun rights using tripe, then they decided it was worth it.

this is a correct attribution.

>and which I characterized as:
>
>>...defends the NRA on the grounds that when it shot down
>>what's-his-name in Colorado (sorry, I forget who Neal Knox said it
>>was) by ragging on his vote to protect flag burning, it wasn't
>>sincere, it was cynically exploiting an issue that it doesn't care
>>about.

i did not say it was cynical at all.  i said that they'd decided
it was worth it.  in making this decision, they had to weigh the
advantages of smearing an anti-gunner against the possibility
that they'd be perceived as cynical.

>I think this is an accurate characterization, except that Mr. Betz may
>only have been giving an assessment of the NRA's actions and not a
>
my own view is that the flag-burning issue is tripe, and i oppose
limits to freedom of speech.  but i will readily acknowledge that
(a) the odds of getting a consitutional amendment prohibiting flag
burning are essentially zero, and (b) this issue, at one time,
could be effectively used against a gungrabber.  thus, a near-zero
threat to free speech to eliminate a known threat to gun rights.
not a bad trade.  the value judgment is whether the ends justify
the means.  if one regards the 2nd amendment as the "ultimate
right," then perhaps the answer to this is yes.  

how's summer down there, susan?

drew
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
"Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds." - Oppenheimer
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Concealed carry in Tn, etc (was Re: Dressed for Rape)
Date: 11 Jan 1993 22:45:55 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <9301092215.39@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

> >Hey Dave, whatcha wanna bet this guy's gasping for breath at the thought
> >that we'd actually *ignore the LAW*  :-)

> No, I think it's funny as hell.

> It boils down to one group of criminals worrying about another group
> of criminals.

I dunno about you, but in Massachusetts, my wife and I enjoy the same
rather pedestrian conjugal activies that we did when I lived in Virginia, 
even though certain of those activities were and are still "illegal" in 
one or the other state.

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
 Marbury vs. Madison

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can
 be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
 Miranda vs. Arizona

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes
 no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal
 contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
 Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p.442

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the
 form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and
 ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the
 time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so
 branding it."

"No on is bound to obey an uncontitutional law, and no courts are
 bound to enforce it."
 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177
      late 2d, Sec 256
-- 

cdt@rocket.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: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Fight the bastards (was Re: Dressed for Rape)
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 19:53:32 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

>> >I believe there is some benefit in determining if a person is
>> >psychologically able to take on the responsibility of owning
>> >a handgun.
>>
>>Please consider the following questions seriously.  It is my attempt to
>>to understand whether what you advocate has a chance at success.
>>
>>
>>What criteria would you use?

>Whether the applicant enjoys a healthy social relationship with his
>family, community, and society.

>>How would you obtain the data you need to make a decision?  

>FBI report
>State police and court report
>verifiable references of friends and/or neighbors


So you think that a person's right to buy a gun should be based on how
well he conforms to someone's idea of social norms?  How quaint.

Suppose I were to do what I'd like to do and retire to my montain retreat,
only to show my face once a month or so for supplies.  No social 
relationships at all.  What then?  Suppose I like to commune with nature
in the buff in my remote mountain retreat?  Out of sight of everyone
except the social police with their telephoto lens.  What then?  Am I
qualified to own a gun by your definition?  How about if I live in
a neighborhood and I don't get along with my neighbors becasue, say,
I like to keep old cars in my yard?  Do you think the neighbors' 
references and statements made to the social police have any bearing
on my right to own firearms?

You have made my case for me better than I ever could, of why I will
fight to my last breath against the government EVER applying anything
except a criminal record test to gun ownership rights.  And I'm 
not even so sure about the criminal record test today, considering all
the different ways the governemnt has come up with to make us criminals.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: TIME is on the ropes, asks for forgive
Date: 6 Jan 1993 18:38:38 -0600
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com

In article <GOOGS.93Jan6131632@pravda.webo.dg.com> googs@pravda.webo.dg.com (Joe Gugliemino) writes:
>
>As a result of your position on gun control I will no longer buy
>Time/Life/Warner products.

I doubt that Time/Life/Warner will take a threat to boycot all their
products seriously.  They make Albums, CDs, movies, video tapes, many
magazines (not just Time and Life), etc.  I think they publish Parade
which comes with a lot of Sunday newspapers.  I also think they own
the Six Flags amusement parks.  The list of products is quite long.

I encourage you to boycot Time magazine but are you really going to
stop buying all Time Warner products.  If you are then more power to
you but if you aren't then don't make idle threats that will just
be laughed at.

-- 
-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Identifying felons (was Re: Dressed for Rape)
Date: 11 Jan 1993 21:41:50 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan10.184859.516@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) writes:
> In article <a!2r95h@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
> >
> >Our state gun organization promoted an idea last year of afixing a 
> >holographic symbol on the rear of our photo-ID driver's licenses
> >for anyone eligible to own a gun.  
> 
> 	What about folks that do not have a DL?

Every place I have lived, the state DMV will make you a "non-driver's
ID card" which you can use as a driver's license to cash checks, etc.
So this is a non-problem.

(Except in Massachusetts, where these ID's are NOT accepted by liquor
stores as proof of age -- nor are "replacement" duplicate licenses --
because they are too easily forged!  Irony of the week: the official
term for this card is the "Liquor ID.")
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: TIME is on the ropes, asks for forgive
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:17:29 GMT
Organization: AC Nielsen Co., Bannockburn IL

In article <C0q084.A9r@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:

[snip]

>Sure!
>Cheers,
>
>Dave
>-- 

Hi Kate!

Welcome back!  Did you miss getting your feeble arguments trounced so badly?

+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
|      John Kapson      |   "I for one think most of what Dave posts is       |
| NRA               ILA |   tripe, and its obviously intended purely for      |
| jkapson@nis.naitc.com |   stirring purposes...  A lot of what Susan posts   |
|                       |   should be treated in a similar manner."           |
|                       |           --brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian Ross)    |
+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
|                  PGP Public Key available via email                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns