HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Black Powder (Was: So Much for Iowa.... (Was: Black Market guns)
Date: 8 Sep 92 15:06:59 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

Comments about lathe turning cases:

>One of the functions of the "thin" cartridge case is to seal the firing
>chamber, by expanding against the chamber walls when the cartridge is
>fired.  A homemade thick cartridge case will allow hot abrasive gasses
>to leak around it, possibly damaging the gun and injuring the shooter.
>It won't work "fine".

Or just join the 20th century.  There are a couple of companies now that will
make brass for just about anything out there.  They will make new brass for
stuff that has been out of production for decades.  If you want, provide them
specifications and they will make any case you like.  I believe they use 
computerized milling equipment.  Even fancy stuff like that isn't out of 
reach for everybody.  Even less out of reach for groups.  Are we going to 
start keeping track of machine tools too?

Rick
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:20567 talk.abortion:35156
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 5 Sep 1992 03:25:46 GMT
Reply-To: kossack@qvi.com
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Less Than Zero

In article <1992Sep3.004352.8495@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
- >]Read the second part, nimrod: "...or assumes to specify the effect of a
- >                       ^^^^^^
- >Do you know what this word means, Kebbie?
- 
- Why do you ask? Is your on-line dictionary broken?

	I suspect the confusion comes from the context in which you  
   used the word.  It appears that you had intended the term to be 
   an insult, when clearly (Genesis 10:8-9) calling someone a nimrod 
   is anything but.  (Unless, of course, one is a vegetarian and an 
   "animal-rights" activist.)  What did you think it meant?  

	Regardless, this thread has lost any relevance to the abortion 
   debate, so followups are directed to talk-politics-guns.  


-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  Don't Miss Meals 
  kossack@qvi.com  |       Bag Your Diet
  +1 713 240 2073  |            Eat More Fast Food
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Sarah Brady in DC Today
Date: 10 Sep 92 12:53:43 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


That's right, the dog and vegetable show is playing downtown today at
the Longworth House Office Building at Noon today.

It is part of the nationwide HCI agitprop "Save The Brady Bill."

I'll report on it tonight.

Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-P  LPVa NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E"
Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia
Send e-mail for an application and more information
----------------------------------------------------------------
"...I am opposed to all attempts to license or restrict the arming of
individuals...I consider such laws a violation of civil liberty, 
subversive of democratic political institutions, and self-defeating
in their purpose."
        - Robert Heinlein, in a 1949 letter concerning "Red Planet"
-- 
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Organizations which support S. 2913 (Chafee handgun ban)
Keywords: S. 2913
Date: 15 Sep 92 23:59:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.

Well, well, look at all the creeps in favor of S. 2913.
--
From the August 1992 issue of The American Rifleman:

"Several national organizations had endorsed Chafee's S.2913 by the end of
June 1992.  Prominent on the list are groups that have long maintained that
they were only interested in regulating -- not eliminating -- handguns in
America.

Supporting S.2913 are:

American Academy of Pediatrics
American Association for the Surgery of Trauma
American Association of School Administrators
American Ethical Union -- Washington Ethical Action Office
American Public Health Association
American Trauma Society
Center for Science in the Public Interest
Children's Defense Fund
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
Council of the Great City Schools
Friends on National Legislation
Jesuit Conference -- Office of Social Ministries
National Association of Community Health Centers
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Social Workers
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
National Urban League
Presbyterian Church (USA)
U.S. Conference of Mayors
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
United Church of Christ -- Office for Church in Society
United Methodist Church -- Board of Church and Society
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: toby@milton.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw)
Subject: Re: Cat Control!
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:09:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.170951.18968@SSD.intel.com> hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
>For many years, Game & Fish departments throughout the Midwest and the Southwest
>(and possibly elsewhere) encouraged killing of feral cats, due to their
>destruction of game and song bird populations.  Here in Oregon, many landowners
>still do, based on their own observations of what cats kill.

When I kept my Oregon nonresident hunting license current to hunt
varmints, I often included feral cats in the daily bag.  If I
remember right, Oregon allowed that any cat at least 100 yards
from a dwelling was "feral" and therefore legal to shoot on
sight.  As a falconer, I've had several hawks injured by
feral cats, and shoot cats or put my terriers on them at
every opportunity.

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?


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: No Difference Between the Parties?
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:02:51 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Sep3124723@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!utkcs2!darwin.sura.net!wupost!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!The-Star.honeywell.com!umn.edu!lynx!nmsu.edu!opus!ataylor
>From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>Subject: Re: No Difference Between the Parties?
>Message-ID: <ATAYLOR.92Sep3124723@gauss.nmsu.edu>
>Date: 3 Sep 92 19:47:23 GMT
>References: <1992Sep1.212054.15455@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>        <PA142548.267.715443113@utkvm1.utk.edu>
>        <1992Sep2.192620.13443@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>Sender: usenet@nmsu.edu
>Distribution: usa
>Organization: NMSU Computer Science
>Lines: 15
>In-Reply-To: clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU's message of Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:26:20 GMT
><In article <1992Sep2.192620.13443@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) writes:
>
><   I look forward to a substantive answer to my original question. I would be
><   surprised if such a recorded vote can be found in the last 20 years on
><   gun control (showing no difference between the two major parties.)
>
>	The evidence is in your favor. Republicans controlled the
>	Senate in the early 1980's. Not only were no anti-gun
>	bills passed, McClure-Volkmer (a mixed victory) *was*.
>
Ah, yes... The Sportsman's "Protection" Act.  That was the one that BANNED 
the sale of new Class - III's to law-abiding citizens, wasn't it?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:10:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.001404.16988@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <BtI5Lz.5I9@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com> wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:
>>Unfortunately for you, you don't understand that what Fletcher did was
>>to set down how terms were understood in the period (much closer to the
>>writing of the Constitution than we are today).  
>
>Why should I accept Fletcher as an authority on the meaning of the words,
>Russ, any more than any other scholar? What's so special about him?

Fletcher wasn't a scholar, he was a political theorist, much like
Madison, Jefferson, et al.  We listen to Fletcher for the same reason
we listen to those other people; they tell us what the words meant in
the documents being written.  They provide context necessary for
interpretation.  In that, they're far superior to people who use
MODERN definitions for those words to drive their interpretation.
Note that Madison, Jefferson, et all AGREED with Fletcher.

In Darcy's world, the meaning of the constitution changes with
language changes.  If "trial" comes to mean "armed combat to decide an
issue", then that's all his constitution would afford to criminal
defendants.  However, it would be in public and they could have
witnesses.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Judge, Jury, Executioner In One Easy Step (Was: Why a sawed-off shotgun?)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<ATAYLOR.92Sep8143748@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<b8R002Sd21B=01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 22:26:16 GMT

<In article <b8R002Sd21B=01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> bws20@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Brian W Simmons) writes:

<   In article: <ATAYLOR.92Sep8143748@gauss.nmsu.edu>
<   someone comments regarding my Weaver-hostile remarks  (see enclosure
<   below).

<   1) I do know a US MArshal was slain.  What I have heard of the incident
<   including transcripts of conversations btwn Weaver & supporters, inclines
<   me to think it _was_ murder.  Perhaps I will be proven wrong.

	"Murder" is a legal term. Here is how you used it:

>< <It seems to me that murdering a federal law enforcement official is

> <sufficient reason for bloodshed.  

	So any time a Federal law enforcement official is killed,
	an execution should be carried out on the spot?

	I disagree.

<   2)  Yes I do harbor large loads of vitriol for A) religious fanatics
<   (this guy thinks Yahweh was healing Harris's wounds!) 
	
	How do you know that, please?

<B) race supremists regardless of race C) religious fanatic race supremists
< DO I think they should be shot out of hand?  No, I was being hyperbolic
< here.  

	Huh. If you don't mean what you say, then try to say what
	you mean.

	You sound remarkably like one of the people you condemn
	out of hand; exclaim that all of a certain kind of people
	should be "shot", but waffle around when called on your
	bigoted assertion.

<I do think it is sad when people teach hatred and intolerance
<based on race, or religion, or whatever.  
	
	Yeah, it's really bad when someone asserts "All XYZ's
	should be shot"....now isn't it?

<It sickens me to see kids
<   wearing white robes at KKK rallies, or giving a Nazi salute, or expressing
<   hatred of racial or ethnic groups because they have learned this from
<   their parents.

	Any evidence that Weaver has done this?

<   What I was particularly reacting to is that so many people seem eager
<   to support Weaver and condemn lawenforcement officials.  
	
	When law enforcement officials seem more eager to kill
	"a**holes" out of hand than bring them into the court
	for a trial, I condemn them. 

	Perhaps you approve of this?

<This is scary to
<   me.  DO I really want to condemn Weaver without a trial? 

	Based solely on what you have posted, you desire
	him dead ASAP without a trial.

<And of course
<I have no power to condemn him, or punish him.  Do I think he should be
<tried?

	Well, DO you?

<Am I scared of people who think our government is ZOG?  

	Yet you have no problem with Federal law-enforcement
	officers shooting first and asking questions later.....
	interesting, that.

<Damn right.  We
<fought jerks like this in a war 50 years ago.  I hope we don't have to
<again.

	If jerks who demand "execution first, trial later" continue
	to gain influence in this country, the next war may be
	right here.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:20914 talk.abortion:36374
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:00:02 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep8.002024.17105@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> >Perhaps you're just not reading again.
> >
> >The "well-regulated militia" may not be just any old yahoo who can pull
> >a trigger, but "the people" includes every old yahoo, even fingerless ones.
> >The right is not restricted to the militia, but belongs to the people.
> 
> Then what is the purpose and effect of the first clause, pray tell?

I've already answered this twice.  Obviously the answer doesn't make
it through your mental censor.  In fact, the damn answer is right below.

> >The right of the people shall not be infringed, in order that there be
> >enough of them around to form a militia when it is needed.

> If they're all psychotic survivalist nuts with a paranoid suspicion of
> established government, and armed to the hilt, how the hell are you going
> to round them up to form a militia "when it is needed"? Throw them some raw
> meat, perhaps?

Suppose they're all purple giraffes?  But I digress.

If you want to see a world where all gun owners are psychotic survival
nuts with a paranboid suspicion of established government, keep the country
on its current track with respect to gun control, so that the average
everyday citizen will neither have the desire NOR the opportunity to
balance those who are intense and singleminded enough to jump through all 
the pretty government hoops.

> Sounds like a good case could be made (although I personally 
> wouldn't go quite that far) that a universal RKBA contributes to the 
> INsecurity of a free state, and is therefore completely incompatible with 
> the 2nd Amendment.

Don't ever let it cross your mind that the people are what gives the
State its credentials in the first place.
-- 

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,rec.martial-arts
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: A little on self defense...
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 00:27:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.163811.21675@brtph560.bnr.ca> mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030) writes:
>>The difference between 140 and
>>180 lbs is more likely, and quite reasonable to expect from martial
>>arts. (By the way, there are also styles of martial arts that specifically
>>deal with multiple opponents, and work fairly well...)

> Not to flame you Frank, but I wanted to point out a few things 	
> 1. Expert training to deal with multiple opponents take many years of
>    hard work.

That really depends on what you mean by "deal with." "Incapacitate all
of the with your bare hands" would definitely take year of practice
(at least, probably alot of luck thrown in as well.) If "deal with"
has a less ambitious meaning (get out of the situation, without being
grabbed or pinned, for example), this wouldn't take years.

> 2. I have never heard an instructor recommend any student to slug it
>    out with an attacked. Strike and run away.  My wife weighs barely over 
>    100 lbs even a 180lb attacker is a big mismatch.	

Not necessarily: I'm not saying that a 100 lbs martial artist (no matter
how good) can safely pick fights with random (large, strong) strangers.
However, such skills can make a major difference in a fight (e.g. 
improve your chances if you have to fight.)

> 3. How fast can a woman (or myself for that matter) run carrying a four 
>    year old, an 11 month old, and a six year old (or any combination of
>    them) 

Not very (putting the kids down to run off, and trying to slow down
the attacker would probably be the best choice. This sounds like the
above mentioned "if you have to fight" situations.) I'm not saying
martial arts are a solution to every (violent) situation: If you 
count on an attacker being several meters away, a gun is the best
choice for self-defence. If the attacker will be within a few meters,
some sort of martial arts would be extremely usefull. In the much
more realistic case, where either of the above might occur, you
would be much better off having _both_ options.

                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cpca@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Colin Adams)
Subject: Re: A little on self defense...
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns, rec.martial-arts
Organization: James Cook University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 12:34:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.001351.21247@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>
>>I would encourage people to learn them to keep in shape and feel good in
>>the mind and body, but as a practical mneans for fighting off a probably
>>armed interuder?  Nope.
>
>	I would agree.  Boxing, karate, etc are nice hobbies, but they
>are just recreation.  They cannot hope to make up the difference between 
>115 and 230 lbs, nor between one person and a group of thugs.

I disagree most strongly to this statement.  A lot of martial arts
can actually use the attacker's extra weight against them (e.g Aikido,
Ninjutsu).  Even at my old TKD class we used to regularly train against
multiple opponents.   Personally I have had one undesirable encounter
against multiple opponents (your hypothetical gang of thugs), and without
any MA training I would certainly have ended up in hospital.

>JD

-- 
Colin Adams       Honours Student - James Cook University of North Queensland
  "And if I seem a little strange, well that's because I am." - The Smiths
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Civil immunity states (was Re: Hand-loads for defens)
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:30:24 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <tmi.715760492@well.sf.ca.us>, tmi@well.sf.ca.us (Peter Kasler) writes:
> 	California *does not* require a defender to "run away" or to
> retreat in any way, even if it is possible, before defending against
> an attack. Some states, however, do so require. MA, for example,
> requires that one "retreat to the wall" even in one's own home before
> defending one's self.

Your information is wrong, or possibly just outdated.  All that is
required in your own home is that you, and any reasonable person, would
conclude that you are in danger of losing your life, or of sustaining 
serious bodily harm.
-- 

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: STOLEN **'91 TOYOTA 4 RUNNER
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 03:49:53 GMT

In article <BuMz2B.KI2@wsrcc.com>
wolfgang@wsrcc.com (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht) writes:

>
>Perhaps a real-life crime and guns example will liven this group up a
>bit.  Apologies to those that really enjoy debating what the "We" in
>"We the people" really means. ;-)

     Why, it means cute fuzzy blue creatures.  What did you think
it meant?  :-)

>brose@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu writes:
>>somebody stole my brother's 4 runner over the weekend.  held him at
>>gunpoint and handcuffed him.  am sure the truck is in parts by now.
>
>According to the newspapers there has recently been a drastic jump in
>at-gunpoint car thefts.  Usually the thief approaches a person
>entering or leaving an expensive car, pulls his gun and requests the
>keys.  One claimed reason for this rise in these forceful thefts is
>the ever increasing efficiency of car alarms.  Apparently the alarms
>are getting to be enough of a pain for the crooks that it is much
>easier to force the owner to unlock things for them, than to figure
>out how to hot-wire the car.
>
>The question is, what is the best strategy for dealing with this
>problem?  I'd be interested in seeing the net's opinions.

     If you've caught flat-footed and somebody is pointing a gun at
you, it's probably best to do exactly what they tell you to do, at
least until the gun is pointing elsewhere, and certainly as long as
you are the center of his attention.

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 05:43:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.022249.17966@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>i.e. in order that there shall be a sufficient number of people of militia
>>age around who have guns and know what to do with them,

>Ah, so you *DO* agree that "militia" limits the phrase "the people", eh?
>Very revealing. Very revealing indeed.

Not really, having a 15-year old learn to use a rifle, from his 67-year
old grandfather, meets the above mentioned goal. Neither of the
people involved is "of militia age", but in two years the kid will
be. So ownership and use of firearms by non-militia members can
contribute.

>>   "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
>>   infringed."

>>the right of the people as a whole (which is how "the people" is used
>>everywhere else) shall not be infringed.  

>Whoa, you just said above "people of militia age", and now you're appealing
>to some "generic" interpretation of "the people"???

See the above mentioned example: Free excersice of the right of the
people (as a whole) contribuites to the skills and training of
those of "militia age."

>>Do you assume that the authors
>>of the 2nd were so stupid that they did not know the difference between
>>"the militia" and "the people"?  

>My point, _contra_ yours, was that the authors knew EXACTLY what the
>difference was, and in fact it was this very difference which compelled 
>them to put the first clause in there so that future generations would
>know exactly what subset of "the people" they were talking about.

Then why was this not explicitly stated (as in "the people who are
members of the militia" or simply "the right of the militia")?

The use of a different noun in the two clauses seems to imply a
difference in subject.

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,ou.politics