HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Virginia Firearms Investigative Unit
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:03:22 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:

>>4) In fact, we should just let them buy directly.
>>
>>I can't believe I'm hearing this.

>So what do you propose be done, if anything, about the putative "problem"?

The root cause of the violence problem in DC could easily be eliminated.
Assuming police propaganda is believed, most violence involves drug traffic.
Falling back on our previous experience in trying to ban something people
want, the obvious solution to eliminating drug war crime is to simply
license the legal sale of the commodities.  A residual amount of 
drug-related crime will remain, of course, from those who still have
to steal to buy legal - just as they do now with liquor.  And some
parts of the drug mafia will go on to other criminal activity - just like
the first government-created mafia did in the 20s.  But there would
be an overall massive reduction in violent crime - just as there was in
the 20s.  After we cleared all the jails of the "drug offenders" and 
got pending ones off the dockets, the system as it exists now could
deal with the real criminals.

Easy as one congressional bill and one stroke of the Bushwhacker's pen.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC        |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. |Interested in high technology and computers?  
Marietta, Ga                  |Write me about "Performance Engineering" (TM) 
jgd@dixie.com                 |Magazine. 
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Governing and Power
Date: 21 Jul 92 05:01:21 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Jul20.234234.8544@cbfsb.cb.att.com> osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com 
(Mr. X) writes:

>And a major reason why the citizens cooperate is due to the fact that
>these powerful groups enforce their control by threat of physical violence
>against all who would disobey *their* laws.  There are millions of persons in 
>arms that are under the direct control of a comparatively small group of 
>persons.  These range from the regular armed forces to the coast guard, 
>national guard, FBI, CIA, US Marshals, State and local police forces.  
>
>Due to the superior instrumentality of these forces, the common citizen
>retains what rights they have left only at the whim of the government.  This
>grotesque imbalance of power has lead to a situation where the citizens are
>quite literally at the mercy of their government, who could at any time make
>a play for any form of rule they might see fit to impose upon the rest of us.
>
>Any comments on this?
> 
>	-Andy V.

I'd say you're probably right, now what can we do about it?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: wall@ra.csc.ti.com (Raj Wall)
Subject: Jeopardy
Organization: TI's Risible Technology Branch, Dallas
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:28:36 GMT


On the tv gameshow Jeopardy last week the answer in the category
"Organizations" was (paraphrased):

	"Ambrose Burnside was the first president of this organization
	 devoted to firearms safety."

and the question:

	"What is the NRA?"

Sounds too rational for a West Coast produced tv show . . .

Regards,
Raj

wall@csc.ti.com

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
 be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
					9th Amendment, U.S. Constitution


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods and rights
To: smj@iti.org
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:25:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.153445.1766@iti.org> smj@iti.org (Seth Johnson) writes:
>It will be impossible to control the violence on
>our streets until the rules governing the sale of handguns are the
>same in all 50 states and the District of Columbia (where handguns
>are easy to buy right across the border in Maryland and Virginia).

We have a national ban on cocaine, a substance that is very hard to
make and that is not produced domestically, yet it seems to be readily
available.  (Guns are easy to make; even a HS shop drop out like me
has done it.)  Yet, we still have quite a bit.  Maybe national bans
aren't as effective as promised.

Gun smuggling is EASIER than drug smuggling.  Short of physical
inspection of each piece of metal that comes into the US, there's no
way to stop them from coming through inspected entries, and there are
plenty of uninspected entry points.  The amount necessary for criminal
use is dwarfed by the drug smuggling volume, so including a gun or two
in every drug shipment would do the trick.

Demand in the US will be satisfied, there's nothing much we can do
about that.  (Before you mention price, be sure that you understand
the sensitivity and responses, like rental guns, or changes from
owning three guns to owning one.)

Yes, allowing target shooting to continue guarantees that there will
be guns for criminal use.  However, the relevant question is whether
shutting down target shooting will affect criminal use.  Considering
other sources, it's a silly hope.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.women
From: mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for guns and domestic violence
Organization: BNR, Inc. Research Triangle Park, NC
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:31:02 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.
>That is enough for me to know they are misguided. Noone needs an
>automatic weapon with that kind of firepower for self defense.
 
 Do you watch the news very much? Were you watching the last week
 in May?         
 I saw many store owners DEFENDING their places with the SEMI-auto
 versions of the "evil assult rifle" (even though they could have used 
 the selective fire version)

        Myron

***********************************************************************
 The opinions expressed in this post are mine and mine alone

 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: H.R. 2922
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 01:01:38 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <1992Jul25.223403.27105@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbvox1.att.com (Lawrence V Cipriani) writes:
>My copy of H.R. 2922 finally arrived.  This bill would impose a tax
>of $0.75 per pound on primary lead, and $0.37 per pound on secondary
>lead.  The tax would be imposed for 10 years.  The money collected
>would go into a "trust fund" to pay for removal of lead based paint
>from assorted public places, inspections of said places, etc.

Brilliant.  Tax lead buyers for the removal of (now prohibited) lead based
paint.  That's a really rationally targeted bill.  Why not tax paint
instead?

(note for the sarcasm impaired:  No, I don't think prohibitive taxes
on paint are the right answer either)
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Re: Washington State gun buy-back
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:05:55 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>
>alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:
>>A gun buy-back program is being planned for the Seattle area.  It
>>is sponsored privately by an organization called "Stop the Violence",
>>which intends to collect $100,000 in private donations to buy back
>>guns at $50 each during the month of September.
>
>Good.  Now, everybody anywhere NEAR the Seattle area, grab hold of every non-
>functional piece of junk you can find and sell it back to them to soak up 
>their funds.

Why would we want to do that?  I have no problem with the basic
concept in this case -- if a private organization wishes to freely
purchase guns from willing sellers, and destroy them, that is
entirely their affair.  I have no wish to sabotage their operation
until such time as they make our participation mandatory through
legislation.  I believe that all law-abiding people (you, me, and
the organizers of "Stop the Violence") should have the right to
purchase firearms from willing sellers, for any lawful purpose.

>           But lock up your own hardware.  These sorts of buy backs tend 
>to encourage burglary as people try and steal guns to turn in, since they 
>have full amnesty.

Minor correction: this particular program grants amnesty for _possession_
of stolen property, not for the crime of theft.

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
From: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Response From Clinton E-mail
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:33:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.
Originator: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com


 I sent the Clinton HQ some E-mail using the address which was
 posted on the Net awhile back. Briefly, I mentioned the Gun
 Control Plank in the Democrats platform vs. the real intent
 of the 2nd amendment. How I would consider voting Democratic
 if they supported RKBA, (I am voting for Ben Nighthorse Cambell).
 How they should try doing something about the roots of violence:
 unemployment, lack of educational ops. . . and other such stuff.
 Here is the reply I got.

                                Bill Vojak
                                Bill_Vojak@stortek.com
                                NRA, ILA, CFC

----------------------- Cut Here -----------------------------------

From 75300.3115@compuserve.com Thu Jul 23 10:44:36 1992
From: Clinton for President <75300.3115@compuserve.com>
Message-Id: <920723161833_75300.3115_CHE122-5@CompuServe.COM>

Bill,

Thank you for your note on gun control.

Did you get a copy of Putting People First?  (If not, and if you would
like one, please drop me a note.)  It shows that the Gov. does have plans
for addressing many of the issues you mention as being roots of violence.

Regards,
JPG
Clinton HQ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 01:22:30 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.233808.11783@ms.uky.edu> uk09365@nx21.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten) writes:
>> the Brady Bunch et al.  Sure, you'll often hear their tripe "A gun
>> is 43 times more likely to kill a family member or acquaintence
>> than a burglar."  But the Brady Bunch is intentionally lying in
>> three ways: First, that number 43 does not appear to have any
>> basis in the UCRs or the NCSs. [etc. deleted]
>the 43-1 ratio is based on King County (Seattle) Washington
>over a period of about 5 years.  It is simply a direct comparison
>of with-gun suicides, criminal homicides and accidental deaths
>in homes compared to with-gun legal defensive homicides in homes.
>The method of determining legal defensive homicides was potentially
>flawed so as to underestimate the true number.  (To determine if
>understatement actually occurred would require reviewing stacks
>of case documentation.)
>
>The authors found the following ratio: ~43-1
>of the 43:  37 were suicides, 4.6 were homicides, and
>1.3 were accidents.
>
This is a good point - that the total gun fatalities are a function of 
suicides, homicides, and accidents (with some accidents really
being suicides, perhaps?).  But to extend the data from Seattle
as representative of the entire U.S. is dubious.  The points
about deterrent values of firearms not being judged by corpses
and the makeup of those "acquaintance" murders stand.  

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,talk.bizarre
From: veal@utkux1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: BIG GUNS AND LITTLE REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS...
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:10:09 GMT

In article <12575@inews.intel.com> bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:

>In article <1992Jul28.233502.24933@athena.mit.edu> sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:

>>guns and the technology required to produced them
>>are here to stay.

>Where's my hand-tooled flintlock?

     Probably right next to you hand-cranked printing press.
 
     But I suppose no-one here would get upset if the government decided
that USENET had to go, because it "was not standard technology of the
time the First Amendment was drafted."


>>Guns equalize physically unequal people

>Some guns are more equal than others; so you're just
>rationalizing.

     Ah, some guns a more equal than others.  I believe you mean some guns
are more *powerful* than others.  Let's not play with words.

>>and preserve law and order.

>Not according to those who have been shot to death trying
>to enforce the laws and keep the peace.

     And those who have been beaten to death or shot to death or raped or
robbed or any of a thousand other crimes because the police can't be 
everywhere at once?
 
     The police can't protect everyone, and that *isn't their job.*
 
     Their job is to enforce the law.

>>Every person has an inalienable right to self-defense,

>Unless one's standing next to a cop.

     No, you have the right to self-defense, period.  The cop is irrelevent.
The cop is not there to defend you, and his presence does not mean the
responsibility to defend yourself has gone away.

>>and the most efficient means of self-defense.

>Which would be to kill everyone within 3000 yards
>instantly.  When I get my issue of plutonium,
>I'll come and sit by you.

     The word was *efficient*, not *effective*.  A nuclear weapon is far 
more *effective* than a gun, because it can cause orders of magnitude more
destruction.  A gun is more *efficient* because a gun can hit one guy, while
you aim nuclear weapons at cities.

>Dispose of them wherever you left your brains.

     Ohhhhh.  Flame.  Pretty.

>>Have a nice acid trip.

>Have a nice acid bath.

     More flames.  Pretty.

>>You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.

     Thanks for the help for our side.

>Stop tempting me, fat target.

     And you're about the same for the other...

>>   "God made man; Samuel Colt made him equal."

>Samuel Colt made a fortune.

     So?

>Wake up and smell the commercial manipulation.

     Owwwww.  We're all pathetic, mindless automatons working for the big, 
bad gun making corporations...
 
     Explains Bill Ruger, I suppose...


===========================================================================
|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: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:23:28 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.151442.9016@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>In article <5166@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul25.232111.18191@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>
>>> While I'm somewhat sympathetic to a universal RKBA, I don't believe the 2nd 
>>> establishes any such thing. Propose a new amendment if you want...
>>
>>Luckily the Supreme Court disagrees with you, and has regularly and 
>>consistently for over 200 years.

>I don't think that's strictly true.  I believe that more modern
>Supreme Courts have held (at least once) that the 'militia' clause
>does indeed restrict, and that the National Guard meets that -- hence
>there is no guaranteed right for anyone else to have weapons.

You are in error here.  The Supremes have consistently refused to hear a 
Second Amendment case in almost 100 years.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cc697@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Eric Oppen)
Subject: Artillery and the right to keep it
Reply-To: cc697@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Eric Oppen)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 05:58:31 GMT


Reading the "RKB Artillery" thread, I was surprised to see that nobody
referred to the fairly wide-spread hobby of historical reenactment.  Here
in the US, we've got groups re-enacting practically every historical period
you ever heard of, including every one of our major wars.  

A lot of these, particularly the Civil War groups, do have black-powder
artillery as part of their re-enactments.  Some of these pieces are three-
quarter size, while others are full-sized.  During battle re-enactments,
they are fired with blanks, but carefully, since even a blank artillery
charge can seriously hurt anyone too close to the muzzle.  At other times,
I have heard that they actually do target shooting with these cannon.

Obviously, this is not a hobby for the average dingaling, since the guns
themselves are expensive, usually powder-hogs, and require service by a
crew of people who've trained to do it, but none the less, these ARE real
artillery pieces.  I don't know what would happen if you fired, for
instance, a few rounds from a Napoleon (Civil War era cannon) at a light
APC, but I doubt that it would be done any good by the experience.

I also don't know if they're allowed to use explosive shells, but since
Civil War-era shells are fairly simple, they could probably be fabricated
in the same general way that modern weapons could, should they be needed.  

There's even a magazine, or was last time I checked _Writers' Market_, that
caters to these hobbyists.  It's called (surprise, surprise) _The
Artilleryman_, and is looking for articles.  Now, if I just had a little
more knowledge on this subject...
-- 
Technomad.  Portmanteau word from a novel I'm roughing out, about
a nomadic culture in a "cyberpunk" dark future.  I thought it up
before Cyberpunk 2020 ever came out.  On ISCA and Quartz, they
know me as a Flame-god.  cc697@cleveland.freenet.edu
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Random gun control
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:25:10 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Jul27.050410.7430@trl.oz.au>, djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:
> Please explain why it is that the right to freedom to associate does NOT
> confer the privilege of driving as a means of exercising that right (driving
> being the most efficient way for the average person to get around to 
> associate with others);

HA HA!  If you expect me to argue that a "right to drive" does not exist
or will never be found someday to exist, perhaps under the auspices of the 
Ninth Amendment, you're asking the wrong guy.

> yet the right to self-defence confers the privilege
> of owning and using a firearm (it being the most effective way for the average
> person to defend themselves)?????

"Do the words 'keep and bear' mean anythin' to ya, Kingfisher?"

(Oh sorry, maybe Amos 'n' Andy never made it to Oz.)  

"Keep and bear" translates almost exactly to "own and use."  (Actually, own
and carry, but if you're never going to use it, what the hell good does it 
do you to own it or carry it?)  And those words are verbatim from the Second.  
And the Second describes a right.  I don't know how much further into this
tautology I have to climb to make sure you understand it.
-- 

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...
From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Pistol Permits in Massachusetts
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:43:30 GMT
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma

In article <01GMXN6N24S0A4LLIA@HUSC3.HARVARD.EDU> zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>I would like to get some answers to the following questions:
>
>(i)	Are MA pistol permits supposed to be issued on a discretionary or
>non-discretionary basis?  (I recall a 1985 state law that supposedly
>stipulated the latter.)  What are the relevant sections of the MA code?

MGL Ch 140 covers issuance of LTC (Licenses to Carry) and FID cards
(Firearms identification cards).  The former is also commonly refered to
as the "pistol permit", the later is the minimum license required to 
posess any sort of gun, icnluding rifles & shotguns.

LTC's are issued on a discretionary basis; FID's are non-discretionary.

>
>(ii)	Is there a set limit on the amount of time the issuing authority
>can deliberate on an application?  If so, is there a way to enforce it?
>

40 days.  After 40 days the applicant may consider the failure of the
licensing official to respond as a denial, which in turn, gives the 
applicant the right to appeal this denial to the district court.

>(iii)	Short of hiring a lawyer, what recourse is available in case of
>denial?  When hiring a lawyer, what are the expected costs and probability
>of success?
>

(a) Further dialog with the chief - find out why (s)he denied you, and
address those reasons.
(b) Filing in district court without an attorney (risky)

Costs : $600 and up, depending on the attorney (the filing fee for 
district court was $60 last I heard).

Chances of succuss :  Very high if you are qualified (clean record, etc.)
and want a "target" permit.  Iffy, but non-zero, if you want a "unrestricted"
permit.  (note: It is not a crime to carry on a restricted license (act 511 
of 1990), but the chief may consider this action grounds for revocation
of the permit, and you may be arrested anyhow...).

>(iv)	How does the state regulate the possession and carry of edged and
>impact weapons?
>

Generally prohibited, but I'm not familiar with all the details.  Refer
to chapter 269 of MGL for details.

>Please post all answers.
>
>


Rob Boudrie
rboudrie@chpc.org