HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:53:56 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 19267@ucsu.Colorado.EDU, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <83662@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>>...
>>from losing everything.  There is little question that the "militia" mentioned
>>in Article I was the same "militia" mentioned in the 2nd.  At least, in my
>>mind.
>
>... The Second Amendment asserts that the militia is
>necessary, and protects the right to own firearms, so that the
>militia (armed citiznes) will always exist. That is, it "is intended
>to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government..."
>As Mr. Gerry said during the House debate over the proposed Amendment.

Elbridge Gerry spoke for his own interpretation of the 2nd, not everybody's.
As a dyed-in-the-wool Antifederalist, he bitterly opposed the Constitution
and did all that he could to weaken the federal government.  The majority of
the representatives who approved the Amendments were Federalists, who resisted
(successfully) all attempts to restrict the power of the federal government to
control state militias.  I'm glad that you now have elevated the preamble to the
RKBA to an "assertion."  I would have called it a presupposition, but we agree
that it has relevance to the interpretation of the 2nd.  We simply disagree on
what the relevance is, my position being that it allows the government to 
assign a "collective defense" interpretation to the RKBA.  Especially in modern
times, when warfare bears little relationship to the experiences of the 18th
century mind.  We simply no longer arm militias through private arms, and the
skills needed to establish a military defense are far more specialized.

>>...my original comments about the militia had to do with the so-called
>>"unorganized militia," not the National Guard.  How many militias are we
>>talking about here? 
>
>Essentially one: Congress and the states are responsible for training it,
>but they have no power to eliminate it.

I think you mean "disarm it," since the "unorganized militia" would presumably
still exist, by your lights, even if it was deprived of arms.  Some people in
this newsgroup even seem to believe that knives would be more dangerous weapons
in a fight than guns.  So your view is that the "militia" mentioned in the 2nd
is not the federal army, the reserves, or the National Guard.  Yet, I can't quite
explain it, but I have this nagging feeling that you will be happy to use both
Article I and the 2nd to rationalize what the various levels of governments do
with those forces, too.  The logic of the whole thing escapes me, but I am
beginning to lose interest in pursuing it.  The "militia" is anything you want
it to be, but the "RKBA" has a single, rigid, obvious meaning. 

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

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Stupid question time
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:48:22 GMT
Organization: Twilight Zone

In article <PA146008.330.717553916@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:

>     Dragging out treason and widening its scope is a very, very
>bad idea.

	Interesting you mention this.  I'm actually quite surprised that this
	has not yet been done, especially in the name of the War on Drugs.
	My memory may be (and probably is) faulty, but I seem to vaguely recall
	that someone or group in the Guv actually tried to do this or something
	similar in the 1970's.

	Just imagine the coup de grace such legislation (or whatever) would
	be for the Guv!  No more need to build all those nasty and expensive 
	jails.  Bust the door down, confiscate the property, and kill all the
	filthy, treasonous witne^H^H^H^H^Hdealers and VOILA!  Amerika the pure,
	Amerika the safe, Amerika the conformant!

	Sounds like an A-OK idea to me.  While they're at it, I think they
	should redefine all gunowners and persons with even a passing interest
	in guns (who aren't in the Po-leese or the military) to be guilty of
	treason as well.  They'd straighten out this roubled country of ours 
	yet!  Why, I'm so convinced of the soundeness of this idea that I'll
	be the first one to line up for the firing squad when they pass the
	law.

	-Me
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: Stupid question time
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:23:34 GMT


In <6829@transfer.stratus.com> C. D. Tavares states:

|Hey, it's worse than that.  Even companies have courts now.  I had a
|colleague from IBM call me and ask me what encryption facilities were 
|included on certain software tapes.  It seems they shipped a number of
|them overseas without thinking about the problem.  She said she needed
|this information because in a couple of weeks she had to "go to IBM Court"
|and give evidence.  I found this concept bizarre.  I asked her, "What
|happens if they find you guilty -- do they send you to IBM Jail?"

I remember reading a book on IBM that recounted the following story:
there was some sort of conference in Europe, of which IBM was a 
participant. The French and British participants were moaning about.
What it was thought the German IBM guy had meant to say was that they
would send in 'IBM people.' What he actually said was: 'We will send
in IBM troops.'

Got to watch out for them IBM guys, you know... :-) :-) :-)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Stupid question time
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 04:57:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.180802.23772@cbfsb.cb.att.com> osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) writes:
>We have a Congress that passes laws, no?  And we have a judiciary that makes
>rulings and decisions based on those laws. They also make determinations as
>to the consitutional validity of certain laws when such questions become
>germaine to said rulings and decisions.  Sometimes laws are declared 
>unconstitutional and are effectively nullified by such declaration.

>OK, fine so far.  Given these "facts" (assuminng I have them sufficiently
>correct), I ask: Do our illustrious legislators consider constitutionality
>questions of the legislations they present to the floor for debate and vote?

Do they or should they? Every legislator in the United States (federal, 
state or local) are "bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support [the] 
Constitution." The ususal phrasing, I believe is "to defend and protect"
it. So all legislators _should_ consider the constitutionality of the
laws they enact.

>Or, as in the case of gun legislation, do they just consider what they think
>they can squeeze by their colleagues, banking on the fact that once passed,
>it it unlikely that the SC will ever take issue with the contitutionality of
>their work?

However, this the more common attitude. It is fashionable in this day
and age, not to take one's sworn word seriously.

>Is there any "reasonable" mechanism that could be put into place that could
>prevent the passage of unconstitutional laws? 

Not a usefull one: Congressmen can be impeached for violating their
oath of office. But this requires an act of Congress. I really doubt
if anyone will ever be impeached by their fellow law makers for making
improper laws...

                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: Morton Grove appears in Newsweek
Organization: Twilight Zone
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:41:12 GMT

In article <2926687349.1.p00056@psilink.com> "Faustus" <p00056@psilink.com> writes:
>>DATE:   25 Sep 92 19:54:52 GMT
>>FROM:   Mr. X <osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com>
>>
>>	You IDIOT, don't you know ANYTHING?!  They call 911, of course.
>>	The police will be there in a jiffy to thwart the evil criminal.
>>	Sheesh, some people...
>>
>>	-Andy V.
>
>Hmmm to flame? Thats is the question, whether Tis be a satirical comment
>by Andy V. or in truth he doth believe.. What the hell.. Andy V. do you
>really believe that trash you've typed.. 

	Does the Pope shit in the woods??!  Does a bear live in the Vatican??!
	Of course NOT!  I was being SARCASTIC!  I case you have not noticed, 
	or are fairly new to this group, I say LOTS of sarcastic things in
	hopes of bringing to some form of light the sheer idiocy  and danger
	that the Guv's War on Rights is.

	911 is damned near useless when it comes to SERIOUS and IMMEDIATE
	threats to human life.  I clearly remember the one in NYC where a
	woman was raped and murdered in front of the whole fucking 
	neighborhood.  The neighbors called 911 about a million times.  The
	WONDERFUL NYC cops (you know, the ones who are supposed to serve
	and protect) arrived FOUR HOURS after the bint had died of her
	injuries.  

	So again, no I most certainly do NOT believe the trash I typed.  Nice
	to see that you recognized it for the trash it was, though you lose
	points for missing the sarcasm.

>Oh big Mister policeman is on the
>way.. Well, how in fucking hell is she supposed to call 911 while being raped,
>murdered, mutilated or stapled.. What fucking low brained imbeciled narrow
>thinking cervix did you crawl out of.. Actually, if you believe protecting
>yourself is anothers duty... lets test it... Give me your address.. I could
>stalk you for awhile and take your worthless life.. keep a phone around..

	Narrow thinking cervix...  I like that one.  Now that you know a bit
	better whence I am coming, I hope you'll point your poisonous pen of
	vitriolic invective somewhere else.
>
>Enough innocents have died by the hands of the oppression, evil and Ill not
>lie down as one of the countless sheep.. waiting for my turn under the knife.
>If you are too cowardly to defend yourself, does this give you any right
>to deny honest, good people from doing so. Get a life.. since your wasting
>this one..

	OUCH!  stop already... I said I wasn't serious... OWWWWWWWW...
>
>Faustus

	-Andy the cinged
From: U53734@uicvm.uic.edu (Wesley Bielinski)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Candidate ratins on RKBA
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:27:40 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago

Anybody have a list like this for any other states, particularly Illinois?

Wesley J. Bielinski                    | "I love my country,
SGT, USAR       U53734@uicvm.uic.edu   |   it's my government I fear!"
12th Special Forces Group (Airborne)   |
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Stupid question time
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:09:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T



|> [Much deleted for bevity]  I asked her, "What
|>happens if they find you guilty -- do they send you to IBM Jail?"

|Nope, they permanently revoke your IBM cafeteria privileges. The
|only worse thing I can think of offhand is to have your AT&T
|cafeteria privileges revoked :-).

Not so fast there, sonny. Colleagues here have so far discovered
beetles in their Macaroni & Cheese here, and one observed one of the
cooks SMELL some grey looking ground beef to ensure that it was
indeed ground beef before processing it for the grill... perhaps
revoking AT&T cafetaria privileges might be the start of something
healthy... :-(
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Privileges and Rights. (was: Re: GORE...)
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 22:06:33 GMT

In article <lairdb.717882048@crash>, lairdb@crash.cts.com
(Laird P. Broadfield) writes:

> In <db+p#cq@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>
> >If you believe the 9th and 10th amendments should still be held valid 
> >until formally repealed (as opposed to being defacto repealed. I believe
> >former Chief Fascist Burger called them "dog meat."), then you HAVE to 
> >believe that the RIGHT to operate a vehicle, not having been delegated
> >to the states or the US government, belongs to the people.  The basis

In fact, some of the State Constitutions have clauses similar to the
9th and 10th.

> >of the Constitution is it grants the federal government certain, very 
> >well defined powers and reserves ALL OTHERS INCLUDING those not yet
> >thought of for the individual citizens.
> 
> Hmmm.  Okay, again, I'll agree with you.  Glad to do so, in fact.  
> I would "defend to the death" your right to operate a vehicle on your
> own, wholly owned property.  However (I'm not entirely comfortable
> with this argument, but it follows) as an owner in joint tenancy
> (with you, and every other citizen) I (and my fellow citizens) have
> chosen to make rules about what you may do on *our* property.  I

The question is, did *we* do it, or did a group of bureaucrats do it?
Are these rules the _Will_of_the_People?  Or has the State assumed
this power, above and beyond the will of the people?

> would hope that we would make rules only about those things *likely*
> to cause harm to a great number of us (your fellow owners) such as
> operating a giant, powerful machine without training.

One could well question the several States current regulations.  Are
they actually preventing injuries, or merely collecting a tax?

> I would infinitely prefer to have virtually no rules about what you
> may do, and intervene only when you *have* caused harm (i.e. a tort)
> but apparently my co-owners don't feel that way.

I do.  You can't possibly pass a law which will cover any situation.

-- 
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: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Perot
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:47:15 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <bjones.718036828@dhostwo>, bjones@convex.com (Brad Jones) writes:
> 
> I've heard him say that the answer to crime is suspension/elimination
> of the Second Amendment.  I've also seen it in print, but I haven't
> kept any copies.
> 

	Perhaps to show how little is known about Perot, *I* had heard that he
was pro-gun ...

	Brandon Cope

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: Armed bobbies in England
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:04:05 GMT




|	I've long been a fan of the beat cop, the guy walking around
|the neighborhood and keeping an eye on things.  In America, the
|vast spaces of the country have rendered this somewhat useless, or
|so we are told.  I'm just wondering if Britain has more or less
|police per block than the USA, and from there we can hopefully
|argue the effectiveness and cost of such a system.

I remember reading an article by some General Electric engineer in
some sort of Conference proceedings (?Canranhan Conference on Crime
Countermeasures?) many years ago. He came up with what he called
the "Field Theory of Crime." His model of crime relied on a 3 times
the distance of (a human voice could carry?) as the area (i.e. "field")
in which a criminal could interact with law enforcement. Any law
enforcement in that area outside that field was pretty much useless
to any hapless victim... 

I wonder if anybody would care to apply their mental effort to creating
a simple chart in which to challenge the HCI/Police/News Media paradigm
that law enforcement can "protect" you?

I envision this as a simple or sophisticated chart in which someone
would present to an anti-gunner and have THEM fill in the appropriate
values.

Possible stuff would be:

	- Probability of contacting or others contacting law enforcement
	  during initiation or actual period of the occurrence of a
	  crime. You could throw in factors such as neighborhood watches,
	  so-called civilian crime patrols and such.
	
	- Probability of being within reach of a telephone in which to
	  summon help.
	
	- Police Department access time. This includes the amount of
	  time in takes to get a police dispatcher AND for the dispatcher
	  to judge your "emergency" requires the assistance of a 
	  police officer.
	
	- Travel time. Given the dispatcher is aware of the gravity of
	  a victim's situation, what is the average travel time of
	  an officer to the scene of an on-going crime.
	
If an anti-gunner TRULY believes in the concept that police PROTECT
rather than act as a general deterrent, then they should be able
to fill in this chart to their satisfaction... NOT!
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Yet further tripe from Richard Reeves
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:26:54 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: maine.ce.utk.edu

In article <6893@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

>In article <1992Sep30.005444.19197@alc.com>, alford@alc.com (Mack Alford) writes:
>> This same tripe showed up in the San Jose Monkey News.  As I remember, there
>> was discussion in this group some time ago that rebutted these studies.  If 
>> someone will provide me with this information, I will be glad to write a letter
>> to the editor to try to rebut this here in San Jose -- I encourage others to do
>> the same wherever it appeared.  
>
>This column showed up in THOUSANDS of papers.  How about the following
>suggestion:  Somebody here post a cogent rebuttal of 200 words or
>less, and we each can sign it individually ourselves and send it to our 
>local "Reeves outlet" newspaper.  It would be more efficient than
>everybody writing a different letter to a different newspaper.

     It might also be ignored as some sort of "NRA sponsored" letter
writing campaign, where the large numbers of identical responses was to
"cover up their lack of popular support."

     Don't underestimate these people.  They're good.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: toby@carson.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw)
Subject: RKRB .sigs
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:05:50 GMT

Several people have suggested that a collection of .sig lines on
the right to keep and read books might be amusing.  Here are some
of mine, and I'm looking forward to additions from the net.

Toby Bradshaw
Department of Biochemistry and College of Forest Resources
University of Washington, Seattle
toby@u.washington.edu

"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the prosperity of
a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall
not be infringed."

Do you conclude from this that only voters may own books?

Does this statement make you want to register books, or ban some
of them, or prevent them from being read in public?

Do you believe that all "inflammatory" books should be stored
in libraries, since no honest person needs such a book at home
where a child might read it?

Should there be a waiting period for the purchase of "dangerous"
books, magazines, and newspapers?

Should speed reading courses be restricted to police and military
to prevent "assault reading" by citizens?

Do you think that banning legal possession of easily-concealed
novels will stop criminals from reading?

Should we stop teaching children to read, since what they might
read could be harmful to them?
From: mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: My response to newspaper bias - Part I
Date: 5 Oct 92 12:24:42 GMT
Organization: BNR, Inc. Research Triangle Park, NC


 >henry schaffer wrote:
 >Does anybody read the corrections which the News & Observer tucks
>away inside the newspaper?  When misinformation is in the headline of an
>article on the front page of a section, I've always wondered how visible is
>the correction.
 
  Henry, most of the time they don't even print corrections. After that
 kid got shot outside of the basketball game and they caught the perps.
 The Nusicence and Disturber went on their usual rant about how we need the
brady bill and handguns should be banned. I sent them a letter challenging them
to prove that the perps bought the guns legally. (in North Carolina a person 
and his character witness have to go through a backround check and wait 7 days
before receiving a permit to purchase a handgun). The N&D reports every week 
the names and addresses of the people that receive permits from the county 
sheriff. So I know they have access to that information. 
 I gave them 2 weeks to print the info or I would cancel. Well I cancelled they
have called me twice and keep trying to blame it on bad service from my paper-
boy. (sir, you cancelled due to poor service right?) Wrong! I gave my carrier
a letter thanking him for his good service and explaining why I cancelled. 
 Last Saturday I got a call from the N&D again trying to blame the carrier, and
this time a different person got a 15 min earfull on the sloppy journalism 
displayed by the paper(they interject opinions in the middle of articles on
more than just gun control). I gave him examples. I didn't tell him and I
haven't written a letter yet, but I'm think I'm going to write to their big 
advertisers and tell them why I won't be seeing their adds anymore.

   Myron Petro
  NRA, USPSA 


 ***************************************************************

 The opinions included in this post are my sole responsibility.
 And are protected by the First Ammendment and guarnteed by the 
 Second.   
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns