HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:39:45 GMT

In article <9301061627.25@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>And what about people with felony records?
>>
>>They don't want people to own handguns either.
>
>But your not worried about felons having guns?

I'm worried about violent people running around loose, regardless of the 
firearms laws.  If they are inclined to commit violent crime, preventing 
potential victims from means of self-defense only compouds the problems.  
Criminals will always be able to obtain weapons.  You can only regulate 
people who follow regulations.

>
>>>>It takes one minute to train even an idiot to not hurt themselves or 
>>>>others:  don't point the end with the hole in it at anything you don't want 
>>>>a hole in.
>>
>>>There is slightly more to it than that.
>>
>>More to what?  Shooting, or not having a gun accident?  Certainly
>>training someone to shoot with any accuracy requires more training
>>than "don't point it at people", but basic safety is, well, basic, at
>>the level of "don't stick your hand into the blades of a running lawn
>>mower" or "don't mix bleach and ammonia".  Oddly enough, I know people
>>who've failed to obey both of these rules (with the obvious
>>consequences), but I don't know anyone who has been injured in a gun
>>accident.
>
>I know several.  One of them made the grave mistake of buying the poor
>excuse for a gun that Walther sells these days.  His PPK liked to jam
>at frequent intervals.  He tried to clear a jam by tapping it on a gun
>rest at a range, and shot himself in the foot.

He shouldn't have pointed it at his foot unless he wanted a hole there.  He 
was careless.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: Always wear your safety equipment, kiddies.
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:27:10 GMT

In article <9301101321.40@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>
>>      Though I'm willing to be Rick doesn't know it, he just answered his
>>own question.
>
>Ok.  If shootings in my community were happening with the same frequency 
>as car accidents, I would probably be damn sure to arm myself every time
>that I left the house.  

Gosh darn it, what if the law said you couldn't?  You mean you'd
*break* the law?  That'd make you a criminal!  Does that mean you
value the right to defend yourself more than you value a meaningless
law?  So, tell me, why have you been seeming to be pushing for more
restrictions on friearms ownership?  Note:  I didn't say you were
pushing for them, just that you seem to be pushing for them. In the
absence of a stated goal, we can only assume.  If this is incorrect,
the fault is yours.

-- 
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
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: communists + anarchists in the NRA
Date: 5 Jan 93 21:18:16 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <1993Jan5.161623.9558@uvm.edu> aforum@moose.uvm.edu (autonome forum)writes:
>Just curious: how many other communists/anarchists are there in the
>NRA besides us? Hopefully there are some other leftists in the group;
>we can't let it get totally dominated by right-wing freaks!

Great constructive attitude, jerk.

On behalf of my fellow pro-RKBA liberals, I fart in your general direction!

    don
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson)
Subject: Re: What Problem Is Supposed To Be Solved, Here? (Was: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: AC Nielsen Co., Bannockburn IL
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 19:52:44 GMT

In article <9301061141.17@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
[snip]
>>	Perhaps the police could arrest persons accused of committing
>>	criminal acts *after* the act has occurred?
>>
>>	Does this concept seem too radical for Kelly?
>
>It doesn't help murder victims very much.

    "Mr. Kelly, I hereby place you under citizen's arrest on the grounds
    that you might murder someone someday somehow.  Please report to your
    local police station."

    Can Kelly possibly be serious?

+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
|      John Kapson      | "1935 will go down in history!  For the first time, |
| NRA               ILA | a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our   |
| jkapson@nis.naitc.com | streets will be safer, our police more efficient    |
|                       | and the world will follow our lead into the         |
|                       | future!"  - Adolf Hitler                            |
+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
|                  PGP Public Key available via email                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Time-Warner
Date: 9 Jan 93 02:07:12 GMT
Organization: "Well, a head on top, an arm on each side, two legs...."

In <24753@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:

>Just a quick question about Time-Warner.  Was it Time-Warner that promoted
>and defended Ice Tea's Cop Killer song?  

I believe so.  An amazingly pro-liberty response from a corporation
that has otherwise demonstrated itself as being controlled entirely
by statist thugs bent on denying personal freedom wherever possible.


-- 
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!
From: andyw@meaddata.com (Andy Welter)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: TIME is on the ropes, asks for forgive
Date: 5 Jan 1993 19:08:51 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Distribution: world
Reply-To: andyw@meaddata.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: geronimo.meaddata.com

In article Jvo@SSD.intel.com, hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
< stuff deleted >
>Incidently, for those postage paid mail guerillas in the audience, Time-Warner,
>in their latest tacky mailing on books about serial killers and other sensational
>slimeballs, has a postage paid postcard to send back.
>
>The kicker is, they've also included a return merchandise label on the same piece
>of cardboard, so you can "return the first volume if you don't like it."
>
>Attaching this label to a 70 pound box of rocks will result in them paying a fair
>slug of fourth class return postage, and is 100% legal.
>
>Be sure to include a note telling them *why* you are doing this.  Nothing like a
>little legal monkeywrenching to start the New Year...
>
>-- 
>Kirk Hays - NRA Life.
>"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
>do nothing."  -- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

How many people out there think a book series glamorizing serial killers is 
is a pretty sick and irresponsible publishing decision?

How the hell can a company that publishes crap like that, and songs like 
Cop Killer get all high and mighty about firearms advertising???


---
|Andrew Welter	     |  All views are mine and not |      (513) 865-6822   
|Mead Data Central   |    that of my employer      |      pd&o-ps-ts-dsp       
|P.O. Box 933        |                             |     andyw@meaddata.com
|Dayton, Ohio  45401 |          	           | ...!uunet!meaddata!andyw

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: A new solution! (Was: Re: Dressed for Rape)
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 03:52:47 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <ARCHER.663.726428569@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <9301061641.51@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>Wayne Lo didn't have an FID.  He was able to buy a gun in Mass under an
>>act of law that allows "hospitality" to out of state visitors.
>>
>>And it is extremely easy to get an FID ( allows purchase of long guns and
>>ammo ) unless you live in Boston.
>
>Unless your local police chief decides to make it otherwise.

Here in Framingham, where I live, the chief of police wouldn't even bother
worrying about who is getting an FID card.  That's granted entirely on the
basis of the background check.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:06:19 GMT

In article <C0I7A4.A5K@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves) writes:

>What the hell is a felon doing walking the streets?  If someone has
>proven themselves to be a menace to others, why do we let them free
>after they've committed their crime?

If their entire term was served they are released; only CA and WA have
indefinite sentences.

Some havens of political stylishness let convicts, even those in for
violent crimes, out on weekends; now, that's just plain stupid.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 7 Jan 93 21:01:40 GMT
	<9212311212.23@rmkhome.UUCP> <ATAYLOR.93Jan5141848@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<9301061208.19@rmkhome.UUCP>
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <9301061208.19@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
<   In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan5141848@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
<   ><In article <9212311212.23@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
<   ><
<   ><   >Disarming most people is, at best, complete waste of time.  How many
<   ><   >people who we don't want carrying obey this law?  None?  Then why are
<   ><   >we threatening other people with jail?
<   >
<   ><   The police would like to know who has guns.
,   >
<   >	The police would like to know a lot of things; that's
<   >	why we have a Constitution that was designed to limit
<   >	the powers of the government.

<   So convicted criminals shouldn't lose ther constitutional rights?

	Yet another fallacy from Kelly: in order for this question
	to make any sense, all gun owners are criminals. Since 99.999%
	of gun owners are *not* criminals, Kelly's "point" is moot.

	To reiterate: the police would like to know a lot of things
	about law-abiding citizens, but they don't need to know them.
	We have a system of government under which the police's
	desires do not (yet) outweigh the citizens rights.
 
	Either Kelly doesn't understand the difference between
	a free society and a police state or he's playing dumb
	deliberately. 

<   >	So what? Florida, Georgia, Oregon, Washington, Idaho and
<   >	Vermont all issue concealed carry permits to pretty much
<   >	anyone (actually, Vermont has no permits; the state
<   >	constitution allows concealed carry by anyone who does not
<   >	have criminal intent). The experience in those states suggests
<   >	very strongly that Kelly is wrong.

<   How do they determine criminal intent?

	Well, gosh-a-rooney, how do you think, Kelly?

[lots of text deleted, Kelly's changed subjects again]

<   >
<   >	If it is a failure, why is Kelly defending it?

<   I'm not defending it.  

	No? Then why so many electrons expended claiming
	that "anyone" can get a gun in Ma. so an arbitrary
	and capricious "license" is needed?

<I'm just saying that, in my experience, there isn't
<   a high rate of illegal searches.  

	What experience does Kelly have, pray tell?

<A legal search is declaring someone is
<   under arrest, and then reading them the Miranda warning before the search
<   is conducted.

	Oh, I get it: Kelly hasn't read in the newspapers of
	any illegal searches, therefore they aren't happening.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Left/Right
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 05:22:26 GMT

donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:

>I wonder if it could end up hurting the pro-gun cause, that Colorado's
>controversial Amendment 2 could easily be confused with the Second Amendment
>(speaking in terms of names, not content).

	It's possible, but doubtful.  I have only seen it addresses as
Colorado Amendment 2, and sadly too few people know what Amendment 2 to
the US Constitution is anyway.

>Speaking in more general terms, did anyone read the Random Shots article in
>this month's Handguns magazine?  He makes a point that I have been hoping
>to see in gun magazines:  that it may be a cause for concern that many
>people in the pro-gun movement make it part of the hard right political
>package.  While there's a great deal of merit to many conservative
>positions, my feeling is that the GOP had better lose its far right
>contingent, if it wishes to succeed in future elections...

	Lose the far-right?  Wouldn't do any harm to the GOP, that's for
certain.  However, pro-gun is seen as a right-wing stance only because
the left-wing stance has never been for it, traditionally.  The left wing
tends to harp on the other amendments, but discard the 2nd.  Thus, the
Democrats are somewhat left of center and are hardly pro-gun, while the
Republicans are somewhat right of center and are generally pro-gun.
That they do or do not adopt the positions in their platforms is to be
expected.  How that affects the views on gun ownership?

	I dunno, but I've never been afraid of some rich Republican
stopping his Mercedes, placing the car phone on hold, and stepping
out with a gun.  Now Senator Kennedy, there's a man I wouldn't want
holding a gun, let alone driving a car!  (alright, that was uncalled for.)
Since the Democrats are seen as protecting the middle class, while the
GOP is seen as protecting the affluent, there are some parallels that
I don't think are being exploited.  The rich need not worry about
protection, hence the GOP stand is not targeted towards the rich.
The Democrats, on the other hand, should claim gun rights as protecting
the middle and working class from the criminals who so often use the
weapons to their detriment.

	More in line, however, is the GOP getting tough with the
criminals by placing them in jail and mandating harsher sentences
for the pot smoker, and the Democrats getting tough by doing the same
to the weapon used.  Both tend to ignore the self-defense aspect.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "Are you *SURE* he's worth a Harley-Davidson?" -- my grandmother  >
< to my girlfriend, about me.  "I'd better not say" -- my girlfriend >
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 21:00:32 GMT

In article <9301101340.48@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>So your saying that from the moment that they first pick up a gun, people
>have the control to always put a bullet exactly where they want it to
>go?  That they would have enough control to fire off a whole clip of 9 mm
>as fast as they can, and they would be in control of the barrel the whole
>time?

No.  From the moment first pick up a gun, people have the control to not 
point the barrel at anything they don't want shot.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: The homophobia question comes to a stopping point
Date: 10 Jan 1993 10:13:13 +1030
Organization: PAX - Public Access Unix (Adelaide,South Australia) - Anonymous Service
Reply-To: anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au
NNTP-Posting-Host: flash.pax.tpa.com.au


It appears that the the homophobia question comes to a stopping point.
My bets are that it's there in the NRA and it's taking it's toll, and
my main reason for thinking so is admittedly circumstantial:  One, the
NRA, while exteremely sensitive of its image, seems unconcerned that it
appears right-wing to most gays (and most other people) on the basis of
which Congressmen it funds, and two, I noticed some comments about
Barney Frank in Guns and Ammo which seemed extraneous to the great gun
crusade of that magazine and the organization to which its writers
belong.

While no one else has presented any substantive evidence to the
contrary, the majority feeling here is that the NRA is on trial and is
innocent of homophobia until proven guilty.  Ok, I'm convinced.
The NRA has no image problem with its members and sympathizers.

Anyway, since I'm out of evidence, circumstantial or otherwise,
I have nothing more to add for the moment.

The only remaining point I want to mention is the proposed litmus
test of whether gays discharged from the military can retain their
membership in the NRA.  By my feeble memory the cases who
were mentioned in the papers were dishonorable discharges, but 
Chris Luchini, whose assertions I respect despite his boycott of me,
insists that gays are honorably discharged.  If that is so then
the NRA would not automatically have to face the sexual orientation
issue in this case.  But there are almost certainly other potential
conflicts, among them the status of AIDS in its insurance programs.

As an outsider I have no capacity to investigate the matter myself,
but I'd like to hear from anyone who actually knows something about
NRA policy vis-a-vis gays.


--
** Anonymity & Privacy by PAX - Public Access Unix (Adelaide,South Australia) **

anon.admin@pax.tpa.com.au (a human)   anon.info@pax.tpa.com.au    (for help)
anon.ping@pax.tpa.com.au  (get alias) anon.key@pax.tpa.com.au     (register key)
anon.###@pax.tpa.com.au   (reply)     anon.post.grp@pax.tpa.com.au (post to grp)
anon.list@pax.tpa.com.au  (to mailing list about anonymous mailers)
anon.subscribe@pax.tpa.com.au         anon.unsubscribe@pax.tpa.com.au

For dialup Unix access phone +61-8-235-9010 - online registration.
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: TIME is on the ropes, asks for forgive
Date: 13 Jan 93 01:50:09 GMT
Organization: Victoria University of Technology

In article <viking.726833544@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>
>>In article <1907@esl.ESL.COM> drm@esl.com writes:
>>>I noticed that a recent (post-New Year's) issue of Time had an editorial  
>>>cartoon in which the "Somalian Rifle Associaiton" asserted their rights to  
>>>deep and bear rocket launchers in the face of Marines bent on confiscating  
>>>arms used in thuggery.
>>>
>>Time makes a good point! I thought you lot would support
>>the right of the Somalis to keep and bear arms. Is it one
>>rule for citizens of the USA and another for citizens of other
>>countries?
>
>	Not at all.  I support the right of the Somalis to keep and
>bear arms.  Indeed, I figure these arms, in the hands of the people,
>are the best deterrent against aggression.

Then how do you explain the aggression in Somalia?  Aggression
was hardly deterred there!!!!

>
>	However, in this case the UN, and the USA, are the aggressors,
>and those who would use their arms against us might also be said to be
>aggressors against the people of Somalia.  This is politics, of course,
>and quite a bit of Marines not wanting to be shot at.  I can hardly
>blame them for not wishing to go through this ordeal.

If they didn't want to be shot at, why did they become Marines?

>
>	I think the question is this: when we leave, will we give them
>back to the people, destroy them, or what?
>

Destroy them, I hope!

cheers,

Dave

-- 
" And so they took Ned Kelly and hanged him in the jail,
  For he fought singlehanded although in iron mail.
  And no man singlehanded can hope to break the bars;
  It's a thousand like Ned Kelly who'll hoist the flag of stars"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: Firearms safety training for children (Was Re: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:13:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.015536.7235@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:


>
>  I could have had an enjoyable session at the range, instead of
>working *very* hard for 3 solid hours.  On second thought, I did
>have an enjoyable session at the range.
>
>--henry schaffer
>
>[MODERATOR:  Thanks to Henry for report of another success.  I have 
>talked with him on several occasions about techniques for promoting
>safe firearm handling --- which includes imparting technical knowledge,
>practical skills and above all proper attitude for safety --- and know
>he has had consistent success with his approach.  Education is where
>its at, folks.  More light, less heat.]


I will have to second this.  My introduction to shooting for
non-shooters is very much like Henry's, and I've not had anything but
success.  Doing it with his technique requires a lot of work on your
part, but the person who is learning will retain a *lot* more that
way.  I will add one more point that Henry probably does, but didn't
address.  Don't have more than 1 firearm available at any time.  That
way you don't have to worry about someone other than the one on the
line fiddling with it.  Keep extra firearms in the locked box,
vehicle, etc.


-- 
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
Subject: Re: Fight the bastards (was Re: Dressed for Rape)