HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Need Better NRA Ads NOW !
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 18:35:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.205335.17309@ttinews.tti.com> hollombe@polymath.tti.com
(The Polymath) writes:
>}In other words, if the police burst into your house with machine guns,
>}wearing masks, without identifying themselves, you shouldn't even think
>}about defending yourself?
>}
>}Innocent people are killed in that kind of raid.
>
>Innocent people get killed trying to defend themselves in those
>situations.  Criminals know the score and surrender.  They survive.
>
>I don't approve of that sort of behavior on the part of the police,
>either.  However, once the situation is going down, it's no time to argue
>morality and the rights and wrongs of it.  You will be facing a squad of
>heavily armed and armored professionals who think you're a dangerous
>criminal.  If they see anything in your hand that _might_ be a gun they
>will likely blow you away.  If you manage to shoot first, let alone hit
>one of them, your chances of survival effectively go to zero.

As recent events have shown, you can also be blown away if you don't
resist...

>That's the reality of it.  You can argue about what _should_ be all you
>want.  The fact is your best bet is to put your hands on top of your head
>and do whatever they tell you to do. _After_ they figure out they've got
>the wrong house you can start making noises about lawyers and damages if
>you want to.  At least you'll still be around to do it.

And if the armed people who burst in turn out NOT to be cops???

That's one of the things that really gets to me these days.  The cops
demand the privilege of being able to burst into a house heavily armed,
wearing masks and feel justified in shooting anyone who they think is
a threat.  And they feel that, if they happen to shoot somebody who was
not really a threat, that they should not be tried for manslaughter.
Cops look at cop-killers as the worst kind of criminal, yet they shoot
people who shouldn't have been shot all the time.  Where's the justice
in that?

The FBI and the police get to respond to the danger of carjackers by
carrying a concealed pistol but I cannot do the same.

Neither of these things makes much sense to me and it seems that they
are exactly the sort of abuses of power that the Second Amendment was
designed to protect against.  

    don
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our reason has driven all away.  Alone at last, we end up by ruling
over a desert.

  Albert Camus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Baldwin  -  Software Engineer  - e-mail to:  donb@tamri.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mjp@austin.ibm.com (Michael Phelps)
Subject: Re: Eva Clayton bio
Originator: mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 14:53:43 GMT
Reply-To: mjp@vnet.ibm.com (Michael J. Phelps)
Organization: IBM Kingston NY


In article <1992Nov12.135827.15925@rock.concert.net>, bing@jazz.concert.net (Carter E. Bing) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov11.190026.16431@dg-rtp.dg.com> meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) writes:
|> >I've set "Followup-To: talk.politics.guns" above,
|> >and cross posted this reply to that group as well.
|> 
[deleted]
|> 	Out of control because of gun control or out of
|> control because of the flow of drugs into this area. As you
|> know the majority of crimes in this area have been the result
|> of drug wars between rival dope dealers. They have been using
|> a variety of automatic weapons that should be outlawed making
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> it possible for the imposition of larger prison terms for
|> them.

 Umm, they already are outlawed.. since 1934 (NFA).  Yes, there is a provision for
legal ownership, that involves approval of the police and a special (class III)
license, but since 1934 there are something like 2 cases of legally owned 
full auto firearms being used in the commission of a crime.  Its more than safe
to say that these "automatic weapons" aren't legally owned.
 Furthermore, check your state's penal codes.  NY state has extensive "machine
gun" laws already.
 Bottom line - the laws already exist (for alot more than just machine guns!).
They just aren't being enforced.  

|> 
|> 
|> --
|> "Why, have you never noticed that opinion without knowledge is
|> always a shabby sort of thing? At the best is blind. One who
|> holds true a belief without intelligence is just like a blind
|> man who happens to take the right road, isn`t he?"  Socrates

 Interesting quote; it cuts both ways.

-- 
Michael Phelps, (external) mjp@vnet.ibm.com ..
                (internal) mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com .. mjp at kgnvmy         
 (and last but not least a disclaimer)  These opinions are mine..       
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak)
Subject: Re: Shooting tragedy (was Re: Support Right to 'bear arms')
Originator: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:06:20 GMT


rhockins@enrico.tmc.edu (Russell Hockins) writes:

>When you call 911, also tell them you have a gun.  Then see how fast
>they show up! They don't want you to shoot anyone either,  too much
>paperwork for them to fill out if you do!  :)

 This would work in Colorado, but if you live in MA, NY, NJ, IL and
 a few other wonderful States, the only reason they will rush to your
 house is to arrest YOU!  Pretty sick, huh.  Time after time we see
 reports of burglars breaking into a house.  Homeowner points gun at
 burgler.  Burglar flees.  Homeowner is arrested for Aggravated Assault!
 After all, he threated that Poor Inoccent Mis-understood Felon!!!!

 Here in Colorado we have a State law protecting the homeowners right
 to defend him/herself.  Too bad it's not a National law :-(  It's
 about time that we start realizing that victims have rights too.
 Unfortunately some of our Judges don't see things the same way.

 Last week in Colorado two 15 year olds shot and killed a State Cop
 while he was writting them a ticket.  They are being tried as adults.
 One of our wonderful Juvenile Court Judges condemed trying them as
 adults.  Instead he said that we have to "understand the types of
 homes and families that these CHILDREN come from, instead of rushing
 to try them as adults".  In this case both of the little thugs come
 from normal upper-middle class WASP types of homes.  One of them has
 a prior sex-assault arrest already.  I guess he would slap them on
 their hands, and send them on their merry way.
 
                                Bill Vojak
                                Bill_Vojak@stortek.com
                                NRA, ILA, CFC

------------------------------------------------------------
The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER NOT!)
The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER BIASED!)
------------------------------------------------------------
From: yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Da Media
Date: 8 Nov 1992 05:38:16 -0500
Organization: Yale Computer Science Department
NNTP-Posting-Host: cathy.na.cs.yale.edu

vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak) writes:

>	After the election I've been hearing alot of good economic
>	news like, "un-employment is down 7/10 of a %, which is the
>	fourth month in a row which it has dropped". Or, "leading
>	indicators are up again, signaling that the economy may
>	be recovering. . ."
>
> It seems strange that the economy is making such a "turn around"
> in just 4 days.  Can you say "selective reporting" and "political
> agenda"?????

Information on the true state of the economy was available all along to
those of us who could properly read through the statements made by the press.
This can be done mainly by paying attention to the magnitudes of the numbers
involved.  For instance, if "unemployment is up", one must always look to
see whether it really went up more than .0001%.  Similarly with the measures
of economic activity which determine whether we have "growth" or
"recession".  If these measures are edging ever so slightly downwards, it is
literally correct to call the situation a "recession", but it would be far
more informative to call it the maintenance of the status quo.  Again, one
must look at the numbers.

--
Norman Yarvin						yarvin@cs.yale.edu
 "Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to
  prove that the other party is unfit to rule--and both commonly succeed, and
  are right." H. L. Mencken
From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Alternative RKBA Groups Needed
Date: 13 Nov 92 18:22:11 -0500

In article <1dt00kINN84q@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
> 
> In a previous article, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu () says:
> 
>>Should new pro-RKBA groups, not affiliated with the NRA, be formed and
>> [... 50 lines ...]
>>be legitimately directed against NRA. A winning strategy.
>>
>>-- Jim Mason
>>
> 
> How about the Libertarian Party of the United States?

	You duplicated 50+ lines of text just to add a one line
	comment at the end ... for shame ...

	BTW, I do not trust the LP as far as I could throw an M1 tank
	and apparently the rest of the country holds a similar
	opinion. Anarchy in the pursuit of liberty is no virtue 
	(apologies to BG) and the LP is over-populated with marginal
	personalities. It has been said that one should be wary of
	those who protest most loudly for liberty because they 
	very often have ulterior motives and would support
	a totalitarian regime just as quiclky if it satisfied
	those motives. [I can find the source for that if you
	want .. it's 14th century]

	I could stand a very moderate Libertarian point of view,
	and it wouldn't hurt to have more of that in our
	government. But the present LP - forget it !

-- JM
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: A thought on the comming gun bans
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:23:57 GMT
	<1992Nov10.022829.10812@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
	<PA142548.417.721409979@utkvm1.utk.edu>
	<1992Nov11.033027.24187@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Distribution: usa
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <1992Nov11.033027.24187@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
<In article <PA142548.417.721409979@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
<>>Mostly becuase of the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution: "
<>C'mon Frank:  if the congress critters are willing to ignore the protection 
<>afforded us by the Second Amendment, why do you think they will pay any 
<>attention to the Fifth?

<   No, but the Supreme Court probably would: They are willing to overturn
<   laws on Fifth Amendment grounds, even if they are reluctant to hear
<   Second Amendment cases.

	They are? Hmm....why, then, is RICO still on the books?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt)
Subject: Re: Spraying Bullets with Dangerous Guns
Originator: swatt@mickey.CS.Yale.Edu
Organization: Yale University, Computing & Information Systems
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:30:38 GMT


In article <1dq5o9INNr1h@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
|> 
|> In a previous article, watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt) says:

	< proposal to issue public challenge I could duplicate the
	  Stockton Schoolyard and McDonalds massacres with the same
	  gun/ammo Pres. Bush takes quail hunting.


|> Unfortunately, this has the potential to backfire.  If you actually
|> persuade people that you are right, won't they decide they should
|> just work to ban *all* guns?

Well yes, I thought about that too.  Given there are 60 or 70 million
gunowners in the U.S. (estimates vary), and that under currently law,
every single one of them is eligible to vote, how is it the gun control
proponents can succeed?  They do so by divide and conquer techniques;
propose something this year that the shotgun owners will go along with;
then something next year the hunting rifle owners will go along with.
As long as you can keep most of them apathetic ("this won't affect me
or my guns"), you can chip away a bit at a time towards an eventual
general ban.

Strategically, I think we'd be much better off if it was *all of them*
against *all of us*.  We should win rather handily.
-- 
  Alan S. Watt
  Yale University			Computing and Information Systems
  Box 2112 Yale Station			(203) 432-6602
  New Haven, CT  06520-2112		Watt-Alan@Yale.Edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: urbin@interlan.interlan.com (Mark Urbin)
Subject: Re: A thought on the comming gun bans
Keywords: To purchase, or not to purchase....
Organization: Racal-Datacom
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:51:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.022829.10812@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.165550.14827@mdd.comm.mot.com> booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth) writes:
>>The government gives you money for newly banned firearms?!?!
>>Speaking as a Canadian where several score firearms and all
>>"variants thereof" were just banned, driving several 10s of millions
>>dollars in firearms into the black market, why do you think
>>a Clinton gov't would compensate you?
>Mostly becuase of the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution: "...[no 
>person shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
>due process of law; nor shall private priperty be taken for public
>use without just compensation." 
   Where the people in New York City compensated for the legally registered 
rifles that were declared illegal and then collected by the Police?

>The current Supreme Court reasonably
>open to just compensation arguments: A recent environmental law, for
>example, where they held that a developer was owed just compensation
>if environmental laws prevented him from building on his lands. Any
>gun prohibition would have to offer _some_ form of just compensation
>in order to be Constitutional (or include a "grandfather" clause
>exempting previous owners.) The real question is, what constitutes
>"just compensation"? Senator Chaffee of Rhode Island seems to think
>that $40 is "just compensation" for the average handgun...
>
>
>                                            Frank Crary
>                                            CU Boulder
>
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: A thought on the comming gun bans
Keywords: To purchase, or not to purchase....
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 02:28:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.165550.14827@mdd.comm.mot.com> booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth) writes:
>The government gives you money for newly banned firearms?!?!
>Speaking as a Canadian where several score firearms and all
>"variants thereof" were just banned, driving several 10s of millions
>dollars in firearms into the black market, why do you think
>a Clinton gov't would compensate you?

Mostly becuase of the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution: "...[no 
person shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor shall private priperty be taken for public
use without just compensation." The current Supreme Court reasonably
open to just compensation arguments: A recent environmental law, for
example, where they held that a developer was owed just compensation
if environmental laws prevented him from building on his lands. Any
gun prohibition would have to offer _some_ form of just compensation
in order to be Constitutional (or include a "grandfather" clause
exempting previous owners.) The real question is, what constitutes
"just compensation"? Senator Chaffee of Rhode Island seems to think
that $40 is "just compensation" for the average handgun...


                                            Frank Crary
                                            CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Queston on NRA Funding
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:27:05 GMT

In article <BxGJL4.Frw@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:
>
>Contact the NRA directly, they are audited every year and publish a
>financial report and information on funding. Not only do arms 
>manufacturers NOT own the NRA, they give very little financial
>support of any kind to any firearms programs, usually just token
>amounts. This argument is the last refuge of anyone without much
>to say of substance.

Does "financial support" include advertising costs in the American Rifleman
and American Hunter magazines ?  Full page ads aren't cheap in any magazine.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: felons
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
Distribution: talk
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:44:06 GMT

In article <1djkmnINN4fn@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu>
strait@uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey C. Strait) writes:

   In a guest commentary in this mornings local paper (Champaign),
   Sen. Paul Simon (Socialist, IL) slammed the NRA as supporting
   "guns for felons".  He accused the NRA of opposing his legislation
   aimmed at disallowing convicted felons from petitioning for
   permission to buy a gun.

Let me get this straight.  He wants to make it illegal to *ASK*?
What's he going to do?  Put them back in jail?

I suspect that he is trying to make the granting of the petition
illegal.  Non-violent felons would then never get to own a gun again.
As usual, Sen. Simon (who is, I believe, a Democrat rather than a
socialist) is simply indulging in his favorite hobby: slamming gun
owners in general.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
From: vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Date: 13 Nov 1992 03:31:18 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, CAE/CAD Lab
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu

In <1992Nov11.022759.12655@ttinews.tti.com> hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:
>In article <73907@hydra.gatech.EDU>, gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox) writes:
>}Ahem. The guy in Killeen had a Glock. This is a relatively short-barrelled
>}pistol.  Like most pistols, the range at which you can actually hit anything
>}is about 10 feet, good knife range. Beyond that, only the most amazing amount
>}of luck, practice and a much better pistol than a Glock will allow you to hit
>}the side of a barn. ...

>Ahem yourself.  This is utter rubbish.

Okay, here we go again.... Make one poor choice of words....

>The Glock is one of the best combat pistols on the market.  I can shoot
>2.5" groups with one at 25 feet all day -- and I don't like Glocks (I can
>shoot 1" groups at that distance with a SIG -- a pistol I'm particularly
>fond of).  I know people who can easily do the same at 25 _yards_.

I have nothing against Glocks in particular. I don't like them myself,
but don't want to start a discussion on relative merits here. I made
the mistake of using the word "barn" in reference to a distance of
10 feet. Perhaps I should have said "A novice under less than ideal
combat conditions will have (perhaps fatal) difficulty placing that
important first shot or two in some vital area of a man-size target
roughly 10 feet away". There is that better?

>BTW, 21 feet is good knife range.  If your gun is in its holster and my
>knife is in my hand I can cover 21 feet and slash your throat before you
>can draw and fire -- and I'm not a trained knife fighter.

Hmm, I'm not sure the throat is such a terrific target anyway, but
I'll overlook this :-)

I think that was in fact my original point, although badly stated,
that pistols are in fact not the "wand of death" people think they
are. And that in fact that very belief is dangerous since it causes 
people to consider knives, etc to be "less dangerous". There are
no degrees of deadness. Neither should one assume that firing a 9mm
slug into someone will prevent them from crossing that distance
and stabbing you anyway. If I see one more movie where *all* the bad guys
drop like sacks of cement after *one* hit by our heroic officer's .38......


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:31:01 GMT

In article <1d6qjtINNkg@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke) writes:
>A few years ago some study compared the murder rates in Seattle with those
>in Vancouver.  These two cities have strong similarities in size, 
>demographics, and geographic proximity.  The primary difference is that
>one is American and the other Canadian.
>
>The conclusion was that the murder rates with knives, rifles, and shotguns
>was virtually identical between the two cities (rifles and shotguns are not
>restricted firearms in Canada).  However, the murder rate with handguns,
>semi-auto, and fully-auto firearms in Seattle was many (10? can't remember
>exactly) times higher.  These types of firearms *are* restricted in Canada.

And yet Seattle and Vancover are SO close to one another, across a virtually 
open boarder.  If guns are the problem, why haven't they migrated over 
there?  

That survey was so biased and flawed that I have seen it refuted over a 
doxen times in this forum.  Would one of you stats wizards please clue this 
guy in on the problems with the Sea-Van "study" numbers?

>
>It should also be pointed out that Vancouver is a pretty violent city, by
>Canadian standards.
>
>One particular statistic that jumped out at me was that out of some 
>100-odd shootings in private homes in Seattle over the course of the
>study, only one involved a resident shooting an intruder.  Most of the
>rest involved family members shooting each other in disputes, or mistaking
>each other for intruders.  

Umm... Look again:  the most likely people to assault you are people who are 
known to you:  abusive spouses, fellow drug dealers, etc.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=