HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: CLINTON NEW TEXT: GUN CONTROL
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 15:27:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.135425.22733@hemlock.cray.com> dadams@cray.com (David Adams) writes:

>In article H2J@acsu.buffalo.edu, blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger) writes:
>|In article <viking.714451326@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>|>
>|>	If this is true, I may just vote for Bush.  Why?  I planned
>|>on voting Libertarian, but if this extreme is what the Clinton/Gore
>|>ticket can assure me, perhaps I'm better off voting so they lose
>|>rather than so all of them get the message?  There's always '96 for
>|>voting Libertarian, but by then what else will I have lost if my
>|>vote didn't help defeat what we all saw?
>|
>|In all seriousness, will Bush be any better than Clinton when it
>|comes to gun control?  Bush hasn't exactly attacked Clinton on
>|his stance.  I believe, if elected, Bush will adopt Clinton's
>|stance at least in part and possibly in its entirety.
>|
>
>Hasn't Bush at least opposed the Brady bill?  And this inspite
>of Regan's turnaround.  At least he has some track record.
>That has to be better than Clinton.  We know what he has prommised!

     Bush has not *opposed* the Brady Bill.  Bush has used it as a 
bargaining chip to get his own agenda passed Congress.  (Which in and
of itself is not something I want to see.)  Gun Rights are a
just something for Bush to trade away.

     This is hardly what I would call "oppostition."

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: A question on U.S. Constitution
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 15:58:15 GMT

In article <92Aug22.055354edt.177@smoke.cs.toronto.edu>
quoctp@cs.toronto.edu writes:

   In the constitution of the U.S., the Fifth Amendment states that no
   person can be deprived of his/her property without "due process of
   law". Does this mean that a government (federal, state or city) can
   pass a law, then can deprive someone of his/her property by using
   that law? (I have gun confiscations in mind). Does passing a law
   saying that you have to destroy something that you currently own,
   without compensation violate this Amendment?

The laws regarding just compensation are unclear, and rely heavily
upon case law and precedents in a particular jurisdiction.  The recent
New Jersey ban skirted this issue by allowing the banned weapons to be
sent out of state.  It is hard to know how this would fly as more and
more jurisdictions passed such laws.

A recent Supreme Court decision sent back a North Carolina decision
concerning a man who had bought property (at a hefty price) only to
have it covered a short time later by a conservation law that forbade
development.  He sued on the basis of just compensation, lost, took it
up to the Supreme Court, who finally ruled in his favor.  This is
indicative, but not conclusive in the case you are stating.

Many cases have held that if someone constructs or buys something that
he reasonably could have concluded would be a public nuisance, then
the state owes no compensation.  Expect gun banners to utilize this in
their arguments.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 3
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:01:16 GMT

In article <4400238@iftccu.boeing.com>, bressler@iftccu.boeing.com
(Rick Bressler) writes:

> There isn't much argument about this one.  The MP5 functioned as
> designed.  The question revolves around the circumstances of the
> shooting.  Was pulling the trigger justified at the time?

Agreed, this is the question.

> [...]
> Should Tony have been there in the first place?

This blame will most likely lie with his superiors.

> [...]
> That is, was
> what Tony did what the average person with his training and knowledge of
> the situation would have done?

OK.  This is the main point.  Let's assume Tony is a well trained SWAT
member, and all that.  Tony sees a "suspect" appear to be attacking the
children.  Tony (being a well-trained SWAT guy) shoots this "suspect" with
intent to *stop*.  But Tony hits the "suspect" in the neck, rather than in
the torso, as one would expect in "shoot to stop".

Why did Tony shoot the woman in the neck, rather than the torso?:

1) Did Tony panic, causing him to miss his target? (not well-trained...).

2) Did Tony panic, causing him to accidentally discharge his weapon? (not
   well-trained...).

3) Did Tony intentionally try for a head shot because he believed the
   "suspect" to be wearing body armor?

4) Did Tony try for a torso shot, and the "suspect" jumped, or ducked at
   an inopportune moment?

5) Can you think of any other possibilities?

I think the answer to this question will go a long ways towards settling
the problem in dispute.  I think this is the one thing that's been sort
of subconsciously bugging me about the facts, and why I thought they were
incomplete.

> In this case he didn't know the woman personally, so there is no reason
> to believe that there was any intent to 'murder' anybody.

A reasonable assumption.

> The only two
> reasonable criminal judgments are negligent homicide, or involuntary
> manslaughter, or a judgement of excusable homicide.

Correct.  This depends on the circumstances.  Shooting the neck seems
to indicate that he wasn't as much in control as he should have been.
A shot to the torso, while quite possibly fatal, would indicate that
he was performing in the manner suggested (i.e. protecting the kids).
This is why I claimed it looked like negligent homicide.

-- 
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: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: RKBA - are you missing the point?
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:22:13 GMT

In article <81482@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>In article 17f7f7INN4p2@agate.berkeley.edu, fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary) writes:
>>Madison, when he introduced the Bill of Rights to Congress,  specifically 
>>said he drafted them to satisfy the opposition to the Constitution (as
>>represented by the debates over ratification.)
>
>Again, this means very little.  You can explore Madison's personal motives
>and beliefs all you like, but he was not the only person who ratified the
>amendments.  You simply cannot know what was in everyone's minds when they
>approved the language.  Ratification is a collective process, not an
>individual one.  One of the problems with the "original intent" docrine
>is determining just whose intent you are talking about.

That's all well and good, but the fact remains that every one of the
involved parties agreed with the individual rights interpretation of
the 2nd amendment.

The problem with Wojcik's "compromise" argument is that there's no
evidence showing that ANY of the parties involved took the position he
attributes to "someone".  The available evidence shows that they
REJECTED it.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Date: 25 Aug 1992 19:55:55 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina
Keywords: n

In article <71613@apple.Apple.COM> vossron@Apple.COM (Ronald N. Voss) writes:
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>
>>Voss disagrees.  He thinks that a gun law succeeded if a fatal
>>shooting is replaced by a fatal stabbing.
>
>Right.  They'll switch to drive-by stabbings.

Oh, come on Ron.

If they have half a grain of sense, they'd substitute with something
more like drive-by bombings, either with explosives or incendiaries.
(A bit of imagination is not the sole preserve of the law-abiding.)

This is assuming that any gun law will have any measurable positive
effect on determined criminals, which is quite a stretch, I'll admit.



--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Guns, and the necessity to trust our governement.
Date: 31 Aug 92 22:25:17 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Aug31.175646.28326@rhrk.uni-kl.de>, andrick@sun.rhrk.uni-kl.de (Ulf Andrick) writes:

> The use of arms in self-defence seems to be a little over-estimated.
> Many people are not able to use them in the crucial situation. And if
> somebody plans an assault on you and must be prepared that you shoot back,
> then he will certainly take measures that you won't be able to do that.
> The more effectively the victims can be expected to defend, the more 
> brutal will be the assaults, at least if you think of that type of
> criminal, who always has access to weapons,  

Unfortunately, this is an oversimplification.  Consider the brutality of
hijackers, terrorists, or street gang members, towards victims that they
KNOW are unarmed.  In many cases, it would be damned near impossible for
them to be MORE brutal to their victims, no matter how armed.

In most cases, I expect that the level of brutality has nothing to do with 
the level of victim preparedness, and everything to do with the person 
committing the assault.

Even if what you maintain were true, what would it matter to the poor city
dweller who disarmed himself in hopes of mitigating the brutality of any
possible assault (gee, even PHRASING this idea underlines its foolishness)
and finds himself in the middle of a situation where one well-armed gang
is assaulting another gang very brutally because the other gang is known
to be well-armed?

The figures show overwhelmingly that criminals prefer unarmed victims.
They would certainly be insane to prefer otherwise.

> The assailants are always in the advantage and they will take care that
> you are killed before they get killed.

If you really believe this, you are indeed a fatalist.  The assailants
who have the advantage are people like Patrick Purdy, who walked into a
cafeteria with two handguns and took on several dozen people who were
unarmed BY LAW and could do nothing but stand still and be slaughtered.
If one, or two, or three of the people in that room had been armed, what
advantage do you think he would have retained then?

I like to think that the good people outnumber the bad ones.  Yet we
seem to be addressing the problem of crime by disarming the good ones.
This does not seem to me to honor Darwin.  How can your good neighbors 
help you once you have made them as powerless as yourself?
-- 

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: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: CLINTON NEW TEXT: GUN CONTROL
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:24:56 GMT

In article <BtIrKG.H2J@acsu.buffalo.edu> blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger) writes:

>In article <viking.714451326@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>>
>>	If this is true, I may just vote for Bush.  Why?  I planned
>>on voting Libertarian, but if this extreme is what the Clinton/Gore
>>ticket can assure me, perhaps I'm better off voting so they lose
>>rather than so all of them get the message?  There's always '96 for
>>voting Libertarian, but by then what else will I have lost if my
>>vote didn't help defeat what we all saw?
>
>In all seriousness, will Bush be any better than Clinton when it
>comes to gun control?  Bush hasn't exactly attacked Clinton on
>his stance.  I believe, if elected, Bush will adopt Clinton's
>stance at least in part and possibly in its entirety.

     Bush is bad news on gun control.  Trouble is, Clinton is worse
news.  Bush, no matter what he says, isn't likely to go *looking*
for gun control legislation.  He'll *trade* it for what he wants
(which is weakening of the exclusionary rule, which in itself isn't
happy news, and greater lattitude on the death penalty).

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Black Powder (Was: So Much for Iowa.... (Was: Black Market guns)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<viking.715306690@vincent1.iastate.edu>
	<ATAYLOR.92Sep1134003@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<viking.715410352@vincent2.iastate.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 23:37:40 GMT

In article <viking.715410352@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

I wrote:
<>	When was the last time you bought black powder? BATF
<>	reclassified it as a Class 2 explosive a couple of years
<>	back; which is why most stores don't carry it anymore
<>	unless they have the appropriate bunker.

<	   I purchase black powder from a gun store, not K-mart or Wal-Mart.
<   Perhaps this is the reason it found at the gun store and not K-mart?

	Probably. However, I failed to point out that BATF still
	has a requirement for dealers to record name/address/
	drivers license number for all sales of black powder,
	presumably as a result of the reclassification of
	black powder from "powder" to "explosive".

	I know, I just bought some last month. It was a surprise
	to me, as I hadn't given ID for a powder sale in years.

	Upon reflection, I realized I hadn't bought any black
	powder since around 1982.....

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (David Veal)
Subject: Re: A question on U.S. Constitution
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 23:58:20 GMT

In article <92Aug22.055354edt.177@smoke.cs.toronto.edu>
quoctp@cs.toronto.edu writes:

>
>In the constitution of the U.S., the Fifth Amendment states that
>no person can be deprived of his/her property without "due process
>of law". Does this mean that a government (federal, state or city)
>can pass a law, then can deprive someone of his/her property by using that
>law? (I have gun confiscations in mind).

     Only if the government has the power to order the confiscation in
question.  The Congress of the United States does not.

Does passing a law saying that you
>have to destroy something that you currently own, without compensation
>violate this Amendment?

     This has sort of come up.  Florida, I think passed a law prohibiting
building on a certain stretch of beach.  A guy had just bought property
there for millions, and all of a sudden the market value was zero.  He
sued, took it to the Supreme Court, and the court said that the law
"effectively" seized the property, and required that "just compenation"
be given.  The same would probably apply to the above, thought it in and
of itself would probably be unconstitutional.

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.culture.french
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: RKBA - are you missing the point?
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
	<81572@bcsaic.boeing.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:12:19 GMT

In article <81572@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@bcsaic.boeing.com (Rick
Wojcik) writes:

   Correct.  The courts have the right to interpret the law.  If you
   disagree with the court verdict, which may be a jury verdict, then
   you have no further recourse.  And, BTW, the Supreme Court can
   overturn jury rulings.  There are no juries at that level.

Would you mind greatly explaining the above?  The Supreme Court can
overturn juries, when there are no juries at that level?  And what,
precisely is a "jury ruling"?

Juries return verdicts, not rulings.  A jury may not be overruled on a
finding of facts; this is in the Constitution, and has never been
amended.  Judges may find that, as a "matter of law" (their loophole
around the constitution), a particular verdict is "against reason" and
void it.  My belief is that this may not be done to a verdict of "not
guilty".  Period.

The quotes that Mr. Tavarres (sorry, I think that is the spelling, but
I may be wrong) are entirely correct; however, the jury judges the law
in the process of rendering its verdict.  A jury does not issue
rulings, and its decisions do not have the weight of precedence.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: RKBA - are you missing the point?
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
	<1992Aug26.175546.13885@SSD.intel.com> <1992Aug27.221551.6303@mtu.edu>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:31:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.221551.6303@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles
Scripter) writes:

   But, the minute you sit on a Jury, and refuse to enforce a law based
   on your *opinion* that the law is wrong, you have just *made law*.
   (precedent plays an important role in court).

A slight correction, if I may.  Juries find on matters of fact, based
upon the case presented to them.  A jury opinion of not guilty, for
whatever reason, does not establish a precedent.

Judges's rulings (and particularly appellate court rulings) establish
precedent, for purposes of the law.

Now, overall cases won or lost (particularly civil cases, but in some
areas criminal cases as well) often greatly affect the kinds of cases
that lawyers and district attorneys will bring to trial.  A specific
kind of case won (such as a tobacco or gun liability case) will often
result in a rash of similar cases.  Such cases may also have some
effect upon judges's rulings that a particular case is with or without
merit.  This is not precedent per se (although it affects how cases
can be tried); rather, it helps form the professional opinion of
lawyers and jurists.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Police Approval?  Why?
Keywords: HR5633
Date: 27 Aug 92 13:10:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.

One of the stated goals of major gun control proponents is to reduce
the number of firearms in circulation, bought and purchased.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out ways to drive up the
cost of doing  business.

By requiring (1) a photocopy of id presented to the dealer, (2) a waiting
period, (these are in HR7 as passed in the House) (3) getting approval
from the police to be a dealer (HR5633) will all drive up the cost of
doing business as a dealer.

How many gun dealers have a copying machine on their premises ?
Does your "basement FFL" have one ?  Probably not.

Storage costs will go up on dealers to keep guns bought but not delivered.

If the police chief expects campaign contributions before approving a
license that will drive up consumer costs and lower demand as well.

How many dealer licenses do you think Leroy Martin will approve ?
Probably whatever number will maximize his wealth and prestige, i.e.,
not a lot.

And don't look to your big local gun store to lift a finger.  They don't
want the competition from "basement FFLs".  In fact, "The Association of
Stocking Firearms Dealers" [sounds pretty snooty don't it ?] wants to
increase the license fees to be a firearms dealer.  So does your friend
Sarah Brady.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 2 (was Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 17:58:46 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>	I think you meant "intentionally" in that first sentence.  In any
>event, what's the cyclic rate of the MP5 versus the M3?  I can get a one-
>shot from a full-auto M3, but it's a slow firer and I really have to try
>to get it.  If that MP5 has a faster cyclic rate, what are the odds of a
>one-shot to the neck from this weapon on full auto?

Uh gee, dan, I thought one shot from a weapon "on full auto" was the same
as the first shot from, say, a bolt action gun.  I believe muzzle climb
becomes a factor only on subsequent rounds.  The first, aimed round from
an MP5 would be expected to be as accurate as any first round fired from
a similar dimentioned weapon.  Who knows, then again I could be wrong.
After all, I've only fired a few hundred rounds through such a critter
so I'm by no means as qualified as Dan, our armchair expert and resident
police appologist.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
From: "charlie duncan" <charlie.duncan@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: rights and legal manu
Date: 28 Aug 92 07:14:44 EST
Reply-To: "charlie duncan" <charlie.duncan@execnet.com>
Distribution: talk
Organization: Executive Networks Information

 Newsgroup: talk.politics.guns


KD>>Need or not, the 2nd amendment was analysed fairly early.  Cruikshank
KD>>said that the 2nd and the 1st were both individual rights protected
KD>>against federal infringement.

KD>I see another name. Who the hell is "Cruikshank", and is he or she a
KD>credible source for ANYTHING WHATSOEVER?

       Mind you the above sentence just showed everyone your total 
  lack of knowledge about the issue under consideration.

       BTW -- Cruikshank is one of a handful of SC cases on the 
  2nd Amendment.

       You being so familiar and all with what it "really" means, 
  I guess he assumed you knew the key SC cases...

       Foolish it would appear.

       TTFN -- Charlie
---
  OLX 3.0  A mind is a terrible thing to waste!
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns