HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hhelanto@vipunen.hut.fi (Henri R Helanto)
Subject: Re: Assult Dogs!
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: 17 Aug 92 00:13:41 GMT

In <1992Aug13.170310.19873@interlan.Interlan.COM> urbin@interlan.Interlan.COM (Mark Urbin) writes:

>    There is already a loud noise of this type going on in the UK.  Rottweilers
>are getting a lot bad press in particular.  I think there has been legislation
>put foward to ban the things.
>   Seems a bit silly.  We keep hearing how safe the UK is because of the gun
>bans in effect there.  :-}

	Well, someone should really inform these anti-gun fanatics
	about IRA... how come they get UZIs, LARs etc. if those are
	banned ?!?!!?!?!?!?!?  :---)

	...Ok, I have plenty of guns, one trained retriever and
	I'm a reserve sergeant. I just need one anti-gun person
	to explain to me how sick, violent and criminal I am - 
	I haven't had a good laugh for a long time...        

-Henri Helanto
-- 
Henri Helanto - SysOp
hhelanto@vipunen.hut.fi m40176m@puukko.hut.fi
Call MyBBS (+358-0-485067/485068/485968/485918/488139, 24h) !
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: uk09365@nx09.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: Paintball anyone?
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:44:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.171211.26422@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com  
(Don Baldwin) writes:
> Hello,
> 
> I just had an idea and wanted to solicit peoples' reactions to it.
> 
> I was reading a paintball magazine a while back and I was amazed at
> how much its political articles reminded me of firearm magazines.
> It seems like a lot of Safety Nazis are trying to legislate against
> paintball, much like they attempts firearm legislation.

	I'd add that anti-gun city councils have been known
	to pass ordinances against airguns and justify them
	as needed to keep children from shooting out car
	windows and eyeballs.  The real premise behind many
	of these ordinances is that airguns are often the 
	gateway to firearms familiarity and ownership.
> 
> Anyway, I was wondering whether people think the NRA might be willing
> to take an interest in paintball.  True, it would be additional work
> BUT I imagine it could easily add a LOT of new members to the NRA...

	I was going to say that it would lower the NRA's 
	credibility with the national media.  Then my brain
	kicked in and I realized that anyone who going to
	swallow anti-gun/ anti-NRA line will do so regardless
	of whether they protect paintball or not.  I suspect
	that they have neither the time nor the inclination
	to protect this game.  I'm not a member, so I am only
	speculating.

> 
> Comments?
> 
>    don

Robert K.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: esprit@netcom.com (Alan F. Perry)
Subject: More National Police Force (Re: CLINTON NEW TEXT: GUN CONTROL)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 05:31:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1749bvINNp6a@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary) writes:
>Worse, this force would be formed from former military personel. Military
>training does not lend it self to good police behavior, nor do people
>fresh out of the armed forces have the same attitude toward basic rights
>as civilians (after spending 4 or more years under the Uniform Code of
>Military Justice.)

Are you implying that all police officers have the same attitude towards
basic rights as "civilians"?

Besides well-publicized examples like the Rodney King beating, I have 
encountered a number of police officers from the California Highway Patrol
to Montezuma (Georgia (pop. 5000)) Police Dept. that have a questionable
(to say the least) attitude towards those people they suspect of something.
I do not believe people straight out of the military could be much worse
that some of the people that I have encountered.

alan

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jimc@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Jim Cox)
Subject: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:06:20 GMT

In article <cthong.713580354@sfu.ca> cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes:

Comments on drugs, hobos, winos, playing god, shooting kids, Dr. Kildare, 
and other babble deleted.

>(what the FUCK did i press anyway?)

> (DAMN!WHAT >DID I HIT NOW??)

> (F**K!I HATE THIS COMPUTER!!!)
 
Christopher, are you feeling OK, starting to feel a little out of control?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Jim Cox                            Internet: jimc@bartman.sps.mot.com
Phone: (512) 891-3182          UUCP Address: cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!otis!jimc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Keywords: nn
Date: 19 Aug 92 01:31:18 GMT
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.

>Anyone can quote a study to support their view; my 
>contribution would be the one which showed the increase in the number
>of accidental deaths after World War 2 when many ex-service men brought
>home guns as souvenirs.

What happened in post-WWII England may or may not be very interesting.

What percentage of those accidental shooting deaths happened during
hunting trips ?  That's when most accidental shooting deaths happen
in the US.  And the majority of those would be avoided if hunters
followed basic hunting safety rules.

How many post-WWII English service men were hunters ?  How many
English hunters were not in the English military during WWII ?

Without answers to these questions, among others, you can't say what
the problem really was.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 05:43:02 GMT

In article <71309@apple.Apple.COM>
vossron@Apple.COM (Ronald N. Voss) writes:

>                                      And remember that it's illegal
>to report a gun homocide in Britain (that's why you never hear of one).

     This sounds absurd.  If Mr. Voss is not trying to pull our leg, can
anybody at all corroborate this?

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:19457 alt.politics.bush:1980
From: labc-1ad@e260-3g.berkeley.edu (Eric van Bezooijen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: A positive agenda from conservatives (was Re: Clinton's plan )
Date: 18 Aug 1992 17:46:23 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: e260-3g.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug16.224246.9391@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <16k282INN4sk@agate.berkeley.edu> labc-1ad@e260-3g.berkeley.edu (Eric van Bezooijen) writes:
>>Freedom of speech.  In Berkeley, you need a permit to have an amplified 
>>speaker for the use of speaking.  This is what the religious loonies use
>>around here to get their word out to the masses.  A good law, in my opinion,
>>but still a permit.
>
>BTW - What's good about the Berkeley free speech law?

If you ever stroll around in Berkeley, you will immediately be assailed by
vast legions of religious nuts who think that their way to salvation is to
cram every one of THEIR beliefs down YOUR throat, regardless about how you
feel about that.  They insult us (students), for being "un-clean" and rant
and rave ceaselessly.  Luckily, we have a contingent of homeless people here
led by the Hate man to mock them, so that what would ordinarily be a very
annoying happening turns into free entertainment.  Without the permits for
amplified speech, it turns into a sonic blasting, because those sidewalk
preachers bring their amps, so that we can hear all their crap 100s of
feet away.  It's really terrible, and I am glad that they restrict it.

-Eric

-- 
"And do you know what's inside ? A priiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiize !" - Stimpy
"You gave away ... FORTY-SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS ?" - Ren Hoek
Ren & Stimpy: On Nickolodeon,Sunday mornings @ 11 AM.  Watch it, you eediot !
Eric van Bezooijen - eric@soda.berkeley.edu, evb@logrus.eng.sun.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 00:22:27 GMT

Steve Pope writes:

[reams of stuff deleted]
>Part of what is going on here is that the false media image of
>animal advocates (irrational, prone to illegal acts, etc.)
>is being projected on to the situation.  If, for example, 
>the Disabled Veterans or some such mounted a similar phone
>campaign they would be viewed as within their rights.  But because
>it's animal advocates, the brainwashed public thinks it must
>be illegal.

Steve, I've read this at least six times now, and I still think you
are somehow serious about this deluded passage.  You've got to be
kidding me.  Like most other hunters, I long for the day when the
media shows you AR folk for exactly what you *are*, instead of
painting you as a bunch of animal lovers and do-gooders.  You folk
would rather see animals die of starvation or be torn limb-from-limb
by predators while still alive than (God forbid) allow a hunter to
shoot one and feed his or her family.  You folk don't give a damn that
by trying to stop hunting you are taking away the single largest
source of money that is spent on environment restoration (an amount
over *one billion* dollars per year from license fees, the 11% excise
taxes on all our equipment, etc.).  Imagine what would happen if the
media told the American public that, rather than hug bunnies, you folk
want to shut down Mickey D's and stop all animal experiments that
could cure illnesses such as AIDS or cancer, instead of beating the
anti-hunter drums as part of their happy little agenda to disarm the
American people (us mean-old-nasty-"assault-rifle"-toting-scum-of-
the-Earth-Bambi-killers being a good start on their mission).  The
media will never mention all the good that hunters do in controlling
animal populations and helping the environment, since after all we are
just a few more ornery old rebels that might poke our shootin' irons
out the window and let fly with a volley if "King George's" troops
ride into town.
     But I have to admit that you're right about one thing.  The
public is indeed brainwashed on a few issues.


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Keywords: n
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: ca
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 01:48:40 GMT

In article <71444@apple.Apple.COM> vossron@Apple.COM (Ronald N. Voss) writes:
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>Take the UK and Canada experience.  Gun control's introduction was not
>>associated with a beneficial change in their crime rates, so we don't
>
>What does it have to do with crime rates?

Few of us really care more about with-gun murders than murders with
other weapons.  Thus, we judge gun control by its effect on crime,
not by its effect on gun-crime.  It isn't enough to cause a shift
in weapon use, the consequences must also be reduced.

>It would have to do with
>rates of fatalities/injuries for the guns affected by a given law.

Voss disagrees.  He thinks that a gun law succeeded if a fatal
shooting is replaced by a fatal stabbing.

Sure, we don't expect a gun law to reduce the number of other-weapon
crimes, but if the result is MORE other weapon crimes, with equivalent
effect ....

We could also look at the with-gun crime rate trends in the UK.
They're not much different than the total crime rate trends.
Thus, the UK didn't even get substitution, which Voss would
be satisfied with.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Kates preparing class action suit against LAPD
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 02:36:45 GMT
Keywords: Kates, CCW

People who have a special interest in a class action suit against
the LAPD for failing to issue CCW permits, and would like to
participate as plaintiffs or have other cause and standing, are
invited to write:

	Don B. Kates, Jr.
	920 Arlene Way
	Navatto, CA  94947

This lawsuit is being funded by The Second Amendment Foundation
and is being handled by Kates's law firm, "Benenson and Kates", 
whose cases have invalidated handgun bans in San Francisco,
Berkeley, Oakland and Palo Alto, a handgun sales ban in New Haven,
CT and upheld the Kennesaw, GA, firearms ownership ordinance.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
"I just love the smell of gunpowder." -- Bugs Bunny
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland)
Subject: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 18:24:11 GMT

In article <cthong.713669756@sfu.ca> cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes:
>firstly- hold on -let me get a grip on myself-- heh- 
>I AM NOT FROM THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA!!

I didn't see anyone claim you were.  I did see a reference to the
People's Republic of Canada.  Perhaps you misread that.

>the cops meanwhile are only a 20 second phone call away.

Unless the crook in your house has disabled the phone.  A burglar who
knows ANYTHING will do this right away.  And even if you do succeed
in calling the police, how long do they take to get there?  Who
protects you in the meantime?

>i accept points of view from all gun enthusiasts and people who feel
>for whatever reason they NEED a gun . (protection? okay. ) 

Since you earlier claimed that there was no good reason for keeping
a gun, I conclude that you have listened to the arguments and changed
your mind a bit.  Well done.

=====================================================================
Reid Kneeland
reid@ttidca.tti.com  (that's MISTER reid@ttidca.tti.com to you!)
{philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,rdlvax,retix,rutgers}!ttidca!reid
Transaction Technology Inc., Santa Monica, CA, USA (310) 450-9111 x2499
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily etc etc...

Never trust a man who can count to 1,023 on his fingers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Reading Brady
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:05:20 GMT

<In article <5770@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

<   I'm confused, guys.  I can't see that the Brady Bill is saying what 
<   some of you folks say it does.

<   I heard the claim that the clock doesn't start ticking on the waiting
<   period until the chief acknowledges receipt of the request.  I don't
<   see that ANYWHERE.

	Ok, let's look.

======================================================================
Date: 25 Mar 91 21:39:06 GMT

102d CONGRESS 1st Session
				H.R. 7

To amend title 18, United States Code, to require a waiting period before
the purchase of a handgun.

This act may be cited as the "Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act".

Sec. 2. WAITING PERIOD REQUIRED BEFORE PURCHASE OF HANDGUN

(a) In General. -- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:

"(S)(1) It shall be unlawful for an licensed importer, licensed
manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver,or transfer a handgun to
an individual who is not licensed under section 923, unless --

    "(A) After the most recent proposal of such transfer by the
	transferee --

	"(i) the transferor has --

	    "(I) received from the transferee a statement of the transferee
	    containing the information described in paragraph (3);

	    "(II) verified the identification of the transferee by examining
	    the identification document presented; and

	    "(III) within one day after the transferee furnishes the
	    statement, provided a copy of the statement to the chief law
	    enforcement officer of the place of residence of the transferee;
	    and

	"(ii)(I) the transferor has received written verification that
	    the chief law enforcement officer has received the statement, 7
	    days have elapsed from the date the transferee furnished the
	    statement, and the transferor has not received information from
	    the chief law enforcement officer that receipt or possession of
	    the handgun by the transferee would be in violation of Federal,
	    State, or local law; or

================================================================
	It's right there: "the transferor has received written
	verification that the chief law enforcement officer
	has received the statement". Suppose said officer
	never sends written verification? No transfer, the
	way I read it.

	All anti-gun chiefs have to do is never send verification;
	a pocket veto.

	This is from the latest copy of HR7 that I have; if 
	someone has a later copy which is different, I would
	appreciate a copy.

	I will post the full text of HR7 as I know it to the net.
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:41:46 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


There is one nit I need to pick on this subject, Dan.

In every post of yours on this subject, I see the same assumption. 
The one where the police are here to protect citizens.

Police are here for one purpose: detention of those who violate a law.
Protection is at best a secondary function voluntarily assumed, as
there are laws and legal precedents at all levels that say there is no
legal obligation for a police officer to protect an individual
citizen.

If you don't already have it, I'll be more than happy to re-post
"Dial 911 and Die" for your edification.

Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-P  LPVa NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E"
Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia
Send e-mail for an application and more information
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ask Rodney King if the LAPD is under control.
Ask John Lawmaster if the BATF is under control.
Ask the american people if the government is under control.
Ask yourself what you plan to do about it.
-- 
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 21:06:48 GMT

In article <3617@execu.execu.com>, dont@execu.execu.com (Don Thompson) writes:

> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) in article 41126 writes
> 
> #Just as civilians are killed in a war, so are
> #civilians killed in police raids.  I accept both, but I do not *at
> #all* condone either.
> 
> Totally unacceptable. Wars involve outside forces intending to
> conquer another nation ( like the Nazis ) or to force that nation to bend
> to the will of another ( or others, like the Gulf war ).

Maybe we need to consider the SWAT team raids as a war on the citizens
of the US.  They're certainly running a war on the Constitution.

> [...]
> 
> #It is nt fair to make one cop's mistake paid for by an entire city.
> 
> If that cop's mistake was the result of the training and/or actions of 
> the department then everyone from that cop, his superiors, their 
> superiors, all the way to the electorate, are responsible.

Agreed.  I think the real crime here, is that the deputy was not given
his day in court.  If any employee of the government is automatically
exempt from the laws, then there is no _justice_, only law and tyranny...

> #One wonders which is more important, the life of one or the power
> #of a majority
> 
> Without a doubt, the life of one. If the rights of the one are diminished,
> then the rights of the many are diminished many-fold . If the one cannot 
> be safe from the authorities, then how can the many? For the many are the 
> sum of the one.

Absolutely.  I don't subscribe to the collectivist view of citizens
Rights, Privileges, and Immunities.  Our Bill of Rights enumerates some
of our inalienable Rights, these are not collective rights, but individual
Rights.  If _one_ person is stripped of these Rights, then a dangerous
precedent has been set;  And _all_ can then be stripped of these Rights.

> [...]

-- 
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: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Political Assasinations (Was: No charges filed in SWAT killing)
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:52:41 GMT

In article <16848367.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
(David Veal) writes:

>      Understand my reservations.  When the police can kill someone
> without fear of reprisal, what is there to stop those bad apples
> mentioned above from abusing their power?

You mean they could do things like accuse someone, perhaps someone who
is outspoken about liberty (like many of us on the net), of being a
murderer, raid their house and shoot all the occupants? (sarcasm alert!)
Would our Guv do that?  Only if they got the chance...

-- 
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: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
	<1992Aug17.191058.613@news.yale.edu> <1992Aug18.014706.29787@ncsu.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:48:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.014706.29787@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry
E. Schaffer) writes:

   In article <1992Aug17.191058.613@news.yale.edu>
   swatt%mickey@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt) writes:
   >This reminds me of an old Matt Helm novel by Donald Hamilton  ...

     I've enjoyed these, particularly since the firearms descriptions
   and usage are generally very sensible and accurate.  If you like
   espionage adventure and haven't read this, they're worth a try.

For what it's worth, I add my wholehearted endorsement.  There is
something truly refreshing about the following situation:

  Matt Helm:  Don't move, or I'll shoot.

  Opponent:  moves slowly toward him

  Matt Helm:  Blows him away. (Surprise!)

Such concepts, which seem almost unique to Hamilton, are not only
direct, but add to the enjoyment of less realistic shows.  I truly
love the old Avengers, but I cannot help but wonder what would happen
if Emma Peel tried her old, level stare with low voice filled with
deadly menace, "Give me the gun!" on old Matt.  Bang!

Not exactly gun politics, but a refreshing change of pace.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns