HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Date: 24 Jul 92 18:43:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

There are laws on teh books in virtually every state making it illegal
to use a firearm in a crime. The federal law and many states also have
laws on the books making it illegal to possess an unregistered machine
gun, firearm silencer, short barrelled shotgun etc. Why in the world
do we think that passing additional restrictive legislation will put
people behind bars when in many cases the laws curretly on the books
aren't enforeced?

The only explanation for this bizarre situation is that the anti-gunners
simply want to completely disarm the law abiding American. This is the
greatest single threat to our liberty as it removes the final
recall athority from the public. These gun grabbing Democrats have to
go!


-- 
Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk  "The Demos have to go!"   (408) 253 4541 fax

"The first thing you have to do is disarm the people. A disarmed
public can't fight back" -Adolf Hitler

It is interesting that the so called enlightened Democrats
seem to espouse the same tactics of their buddy Hitler:
disarm the public, and put a Goebbels type guy in place
to control the propaganda: George (Goebbels) Stephanopolous.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: Mike Tighe <tighe@convex.COM>
Subject: Clinton Shows His True Colors
Originator: tighe@convex1.convex.com
Reply-To: tighe@convex.com
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Texas
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 04:25:23 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

Bill Clinton made his stand on Gun Control pretty clear last week in a
visit to Houston, Texas. And he provided yet another reason why you should
not vote for him, regardless of where you stand on the issue, and why he
has been nicknamed "Slick Willie".

From Dallas Morning News, 24-Jul-92 page 10A:

	Flanked by Houston police officers, the Democrat said: "I want to
	start ... in the state of Texas by endorsing the Brady Bill,
	something even Ronald Reagan supports to make our streets safer."

	"We ought to be for the Brady Bill and we ought to take AK-47s and
	the Uzis off the streets of America."

	Mr. Clinton said a president should be willing to "risk a little
	political heat (to) ask people to wait five or six days to check
	their criminal records or their mental health history."

	Addressing about 2000 Texans during a light rain at City Hall, Mr.
	Clinton stressed he was not for gun control.

	"I come from your neighboring state where over half the people have
	hunting and fishing licenses," he said.

	"I support the right to keep and bear arms. I support the right of
	men and women to be sports people, but I think most law-abiding
	Americans would like to think that we're helping police."

What I find most outrageous about this is not his stand (expected), nor his
[intentional?] ignorance about the fact that the Brady Bill does not
require a background check (expected), but the fact he is playing both
sides of the issue, like a typical, scum-of-the-Earth politician (expected,
but not so blatantly).

Clinton is for a waiting period, and he wants to completely ban several
types of firearms, of which >99.9999% are never used in the commission of a
crime. Then, with a straight face, he has the gall to say he is not for
gun-control, and that he supports RKBA!!!  It would be like Hitler saying
he is for human rights!

What an outrage. It is insulting to every voter in the United States.

One final note. His [intentional?] ignorance about the Brady Bill not
requiring background checks just proves that the BIG LIE techniques of
Sarah and HCI, really do fool the masses.

And as the saying goes, you can't fool all the people all of the time, but
you can fool most of the people most of the time, and that is all you need
to get elected in the US.
-- 
Mike Tighe, (214) 497-4206
tighe@convex.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 02:57:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.203354.28594@ttinews.tti.com> reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland) writes:
>That's YOU?  You, THE RIFLEMAN, are GREG MCLAREN of MIT?  Thanks for

Hi Greg!!!  Don't worry about being "outed."  We're all gunnies here...well,
most of us, anyway.

Drew 
--
drew betz : wj8k : dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu   
"Our campaign is the opposite of 'competence.'"
- Clinton aide Eli Segal, quoted in the 7/22/92 _Wall Street Journal_ 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: Mike Tighe <tighe@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: weapon identification
Originator: tighe@convex1.convex.com
Reply-To: tighe@convex.com
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Texas
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 04:52:37 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:

>>Do any of you know the make and caliber of a weapon called the "Street
>>Sweeper". All I can surmise is that it's an automatic
>>"intermediate"-somewhere in size between a pistol and a rifle.

>Not quite. SEMIautomatic 12 Gauge shot gun.

Uh-Oh. You are in for it now. :-)

Haven't you been following this thread? :-(

Have fun!

-Mike
-- 
Mike Tighe, (214) 497-4206
tighe@convex.com
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Chafee Handgun Ban Bill Introduced
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:09:48 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona

In article <1992Jul29.204018.18180@ns.network.com> greg@gogol.network.com (Greg Mclachlan) writes:
>The following was taken from a letter to GOA members.
>*
>Senator John Chafee (R-RI) has introduced a bill (S. 2913) that 
>would "prohibit the manufacture, importation, exportation, sale
>purchase, transfer, receipt, possession or transportation of
>handguns and handgun ammunition..."

Sucker city.

There's no way an all-out ban can pass, and he knows it.

When it is defeated by a _large_ margin, he will use that
as political fodder, saying there's "no support for restrictions
on guns" or some sort of "mandate" on the NRA's version
of the 2d amendment.

				--Blair
				  "Lightning my ass.  The UAW
				   never strikes twice in the
				   same place."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.women
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for guns and domestic violence
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1493@cogsci.ucsd.EDU> <1992Jul24.050335.6275@adobe.com>
	<1992Jul28.121332.57554@cc.usu.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:27:21 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.121332.57554@cc.usu.edu> slzm9@cc.usu.edu writes:

<      The NRA seeks to keep the AK-47 assault rifle legal to the public.
	
	Only within the restrictions of the National Firearms
	Act of 1934; in order to buy a full-automatic weapon,
	one must pass an FBI background check, obtain the
	approval of the local police, submit fingerprints to the
	Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and pay a $200
	tax.

<   That is enough for me to know they are misguided. Noone needs an
<   automatic weapon with that kind of firepower for self defense. 

	Possibly, possibly not. However, NRA also works to
	insure that women have the right to choose how to
	defend against rapists. Note that women NEED a 
	tool such as a firearm to defend against men; male
	assailants can simply use greater physical strength
	and thus do not need tools to carry out their assault.
<Gang
<   members however find it an excellent weapon for turf wars.

	This is a false statement. LAPD report that less than
	one percent (1%) of all firearms siezed are of this
	type. The NYCPD report the same thing, as do the Chicago
	police.

	If gang members like such firearms, why is it that
	they never are carrying them when arrested by the police?

<   Peace, not without justice,
 
	Right to choose, that's freedom.
From: blosser_cy@lrc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: BIG GUNS AND LITTLE REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS...
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:50:25 EDT
Organization: Lenoir-Rhyne College, Hickory, NC

Man is inherently wicked and prone to sudden acts of random violence against 
his neighbor...a puny wimp with a small dick feels macho when he has a steel
rod that can spit fire and deal death in his hands.  It takes *more* guts to 
love your neighbor than 2 pull the trigger and end his life in a splattering
of blood and spongy grey matter. A smoking hole in a shattered skull is *no*
way to solve diplomatic problems. Most of your gun-owners have no brains and
therefore are incapable of settling their differences with another using (of
all things!) civilized discussion. They'd rather blow the opposing fucker a-
way and end the matter right then and their. They do love to play Rambo with
their big guns. If only their brains were that size. Not to mention genital-
reproductive organs. If we all discarded our guns & got rid of all our bombs
and disposed of every stupid weapon we own we'd get along *much* better with 
each other. Perhaps we'd even have peace, love & happiness around the world.

Besides...flowers are a *lot* nicer than guns. 

So get rid of yours today.

Peace!
From: ness@tc.fluke.COM (Jerry Ness)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Waiting periods and rights
Date: 21 Jul 92 12:53:05 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA

I just picked up on this waiting period thread so...

I have never ever needed to buy a gun of any kind RIGHT NOW!!

A lengthy waiting period to do a background check or just for 
a 'cooling off' period would certainly not infringe on my rights
or the rights of anyone I know. 

Plan ahead.

Washington state seems to be missing something in their 'waiting'
period gun laws. A couple of years ago I decided to purchase a
new black powder revolver. The revolver I chose is a Ruger Old
Army .44 cal. There is NO waiting period for a black powder firearm
in Washington. I bought the revolver, powder, bullets and primers
and just took them home with me. This does not make any sense.
Does the law think a revolver of this type can't hurt anybody??

I think we need to get back on track and punish criminals not guns.
If someone commits a crime, punish that person. If that person 
used a  gun to commit the crime add 10 un-paroleable years to
the sentence. 

'nuf ramblin'
Jerry
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Ness             John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc.        Everett, Washington USA
            domain:    ness@tc.fluke.COM   
            uucp:      {sun,microsoft,uw-beaver}!fluke!ness
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: Random gun control
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 01:18:41 GMT

djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:

>Here in the Australian State of Victoria we have random breath testing for
>car drivers. The police set up a road block and breath test drivers for a
>blood alcohol level less than .05. When this was introduced there were some
>protests from a few civil liberatarians but most objections came from hotelliers
>and other sellers of alcohol. The result now, some years later, is a change
>in attitude towards drink diving and a much reduced road toll. A great community
>and personal benefit in road safety at the cost of a few minutes hassle perhaps
>a couple of times a year.
>Most t.p.g. posters would like to see the criminal element in society disarmed,
>so how would "random gun checks" be received in US states? I know some would
>say this infringes some right but if you are a law-abiding citizen with a duly
>registered firearm then surely this hassle would be a small price to pay to
>disarm criminals. This would also make GUN CONTROL for law abiding citizens
>unnecessary.

But what precisely do you want to check?  RBT tests the blood alcohol
level of people driving on public roads, i.e. when they are actually
doing something.  What is the equivalent with guns?  Police checking
licences on public ranges?  They already do it.  The police have the
power to demand to see my DW (Dangerous Weapons) licence, although 
presumably they would only use this power if I were visibly carrying a
gun and they wanted to check that it was licenced.

So what more so you want?  Are you suggesting random police searches of
houses?  If so, does this apply only to those people who have licenced
guns, or does it apply to everybody?  Maybe you should look at the 
law relating to search warrants and so on, and consider that there are
very good reasons why the police do _not_ have the unrestricted right 
of entry to private property.

Frankly, this sort of stupid and ill-considered suggestion isn't even
worth the time it's taken to type this response.

Geoff Miller (g-miller@adfa.oz.au) | "The first duty of power is to perpetuate
Computer Centre                    | itself.  The first duty of free men is to
Australian Defence Force Academy   | resist it."  Mike Resnick

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jimc@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Jim Cox)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for sex and domestic violence
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:16:22 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.103325.27001@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:

<<<< bunches and bunches of abortion words deleted >>>>
<<<< bunches and bunches of firearm words deleted >>>>
 
With reference to firearms:

>Society has the right to determine whether this is a tool that we need
>and should have.  

No, they do not, it is for me to choose.  Society only gets involved if I 
misuse the weapon.

<<<< bunches and bunches of words deleted >>>>

Jim 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: Compromise?
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 22:11:17 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.142227.4507@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:


>I propose the following compromise with the gun controller community;
>they assert the "wrong people" are getting their hands on guns and
>too soon:

>WAITING PERIOD:

>For a 24-hour waiting period we get rid of the 16" barrel restriction
>on rifles.

>For a 72-hour waiting period we get rid of the 18" barrel restriction
>on shotguns as well.


     Waiting periods make my skin crawl.   Are these waiting periods on
*all* guns?

>BACKGROUND CHECKS:

>For an in-depth police background check without fingerprints,
>we get a national concealed weapon permit.

>For an in-depth police background check with fingerprints, we get
>unrestricted access to Class 3 weapons.

     Background checks also make my skin crawl.  My name's in enough
computers already.

     But they're nice ideas.  It won't *ever* happen though.  Probably
end up like George Bush's spending cut deals.  Bush agreed to higher
taxes if spending was cut.  Taxes went up, but then everybody forgot
about those spending cuts...


===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz)
Subject: Re: Shoot to Kill vs Shoot to Stop
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:51:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.133749.202076@uctvax.uct.ac.za> glngar01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
>The most effective way of putting a person down with a firearm with the minimum 
>of lethal force (ie. a single shot) is to aim for the pelvic area.  A solid strike
>in this region *should* dump your assailant on his ass with a broken pelvis, yet
>not kill him.  Unfortunately, it may not prevent him from using a firearm on
>you (though locamotion is virtually impossible, and if he survives, you could
>even face a cival lawsuit.  the brainshot is a difficult one to undertake while 
>in fear for your life, but if correctly executed, will permanently solve HIS
>problem.

"Should" is the key word.  Hitting someone in the *foot* can kill them, due to
blood loss or blot clots travelling to vital organs.  You're probably
correct the *likelihood* of survival is higher with a pelvic hit
than with a center-torso shot, but if things degrade to the point
where the use of a firearm is justified the criminal is trying
to kill YOU.  You obviously don't want that (I would hope), so
STOPPING the attack is what's paramount.  *That* is best accomplished
by a center-torso shot.

>But lets assume you fail to kill him with a brainshot or he is lucky you went
>for the pelvis,you could find the state-prosecutor asking why you shot him
>where you did.  Your reply,obviously that, that you shot him there just to stop
>him.*BUT* you could soon face the accusation that because you had all that time
>to decide where you were going to shoot him, you had time to attempt to flee,
>or that you where obviously NOT in IMMEDIATE life-threatening danger.

I would advise against a pelvic shot, at least as a first try.  Fundamentally,
what STOPS criminals is a loss of blood pressure.  Someone hit in the pelvis
may go down to the turf, but still have plenty of blood pressure to
level a weapon at YOU.  You then have to continue firing until the
threat is neutralized.  Because probability of survival is inversely
related to the number of wound channels opened, you're far more
likely to kill.

>My conclusion, you should definitely shoot to kill.

This attitude could get you roasted in court!  Shoot for the center
of the torso and explain that that's the fastest means of stopping
an attack with requiring followup shots.

Dre 
--
drew betz : wj8k : dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu   
"Our campaign is the opposite of 'competence.'"
- Clinton aide Eli Segal, quoted in the 7/22/92 _Wall Street Journal_
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Random gun control
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:44:40 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Jul20.234512.4775@trl.oz.au>, djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:
> Most t.p.g. posters would like to see the criminal element in society disarmed,
> so how would "random gun checks" be received in US states? I know some would
> say this infringes some right but if you are a law-abiding citizen with a duly
> registered firearm then surely this hassle would be a small price to pay to
> disarm criminals. 

HA HA HA HA HA!  Lawmaster certainly thinks so!

John(?) Lawmaster was a shooter and a gun collector.  One day, when he
wasn't home, BATF agents broke (literally broke) into his house and gun
safes, on a tip that he had an illegal automatic weapon.  Lawmaster wasn't
home at tht time.  They spread his belongings all over his house, left
his door and gun safes open when they left, and left a note saying,

	"NOTHING FOUND.  --BATF"

Lawmaster's home AND WEAPONS were open and vulnerable to theft by just
about anybody between the time that BATF left and the time that he 
arrived home to find his house a shambles and his belongings ransacked.

But he was a law-abiding citizen, and certainly the hassle of the random
gun check he underwent was a small price to pay to disarm criminals.
The strange part, though, was that it WASN'T, and it DIDN'T.
-- 

cdt@pdp.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: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: A Proposed FAQ For This Newsgroup...
Organization: CS&E, Uni of NSW, Australia
	<1992Jul17.203239.2222@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:49:51 GMT

>>>>> On Fri, 17 Jul 1992 20:32:39 GMT, sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) said:
>>Then we'll have two FAQs, a pro-gun and an anti-gun version.  

> What you're proposing is kind of like the suggestion that American
> history books include two chapters on WWII--one based on the US viewpoint,
> and one based on the "Nazi" interpretation containing quotes from
> Mein Kampf in which Hitler justifies his "Final Solution."

Gee, has this thread been going THAT long?

I can just imagine what the FAQ would look like if Terminator wrote
it.....  <imagine your computer monitor going all wavy here, in the
classic movie cliche for introducing whatifs>

<If it's still wavy, adjust the diagonal sync control>

Q: Aren't handguns used to kill 7000 people in the US each year?

A: Listen you commie fascist hoplophobe!  How dare you come into our
newsgroup, trying to take our guns away!  I ought to ride my Harley
over to your house and rip your bloody arms off!  Those 7,000 people
were mostly drug addicts, burglars or DC residents, who deserved to
die anyway.  In any case, each year 644,923 crimes are stopped each
year with handguns, and if 1% of those crimes were murders, why that's
6,449.23 lives saved with handguns which is more than your 7,000
killed....  Oh.  Well if 2% were murders, it would be more.  And none
of the people saved would be a drug addict, a burglar or a DC
resident, but believers in truth, justice, and the right to keep and
bear arms, unlike you, you, you, LIBERAL you!

<screen goes wavy again>

Note to the Rifleman: Hey, you don't know this Terminator guy, do you?

Tim:-)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: Kevin Langston <langston@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Random gun control
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Originator: langston@eugene.convex.com
Keywords:  Cole Weslock Master Grayhill
Reply-To: langston@convex.COM (Kevin Langston)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Technical Operations
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 12:40:11 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:
>
>Most t.p.g. posters would like to see the criminal element in society disarmed,
>so how would "random gun checks" be received in US states? I know some would
>say this infringes some right but if you are a law-abiding citizen with a duly
>registered firearm then surely this hassle would be a small price to pay to
>disarm criminals. 

    You really need to get out more David. See, we already have random gun
    control. And like more "official" forms of gun control, it's typically
    only applied to people who seem to fit some kind of profile (young,
    black) that would make the police or neighbors suyspect them of doing
    something improper. And yes, the civil libertarians have made quite a
    stink about it.

>This would also make GUN CONTROL for law abiding citizens
>unnecessary.

    Random gun checks makes gun control unneccessary? Is this some kind
    of orwellian new-speak? Random gun checks seem to me to be the pinnacle
    of the gun banner's dream. I'm sure you intend it to only be used or
    applied the same way as our wonderful RICO laws, right? 

    "Warrant? We don't need no steenking warrant."

-- 
----   Kevin Langston   langston@convex.com   langston@frontier.lonestar.org
----   Mitchell's Law of Committees: Any simple problem can be made insoluble
----   if enough meetings are held to discuss it.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:17865 alt.individualism:4529