HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Gun Purchase Laws
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 03:01:46 GMT

starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (aaron greenwood) writes:

>Is there a FAQ list for talk.politics.guns.  One question I have
>is in what states can you by guns without leaving a paper trail.
>In California there is a 15 day waiting period thus a record of
>you purchase.  I guess what I am getting at is in what states can
>you buy a gun where the state does not get involved.

None at all (at least not legally): All sales through a dealer
require filling out a federal record of sale. The form includes
your name, address, phone number, description and the type and
serial number of the gun. The dealer must keep these records
forever, and show them to any police or federal agents trying to
investigate the weapon in question (A 1973 law limits when they
can so investigate, but the federal BATF has been ignoring these
restrictions.) If the dealer goes out of business, he must turn 
all his records of sale over to the BATF.

                                         Frank Crary
                                         CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Date: 29 Aug 92 05:19:38 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
>alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:
>|> 
>|> "Hoplophobe" is a term coined by Jeff Cooper; it describes a person
>|> who has an unreasoning fear of tools or instruments.
>
>Actually, Jeff Cooper's "coining" of the term is approximately 60 years after
>the first known citation.  Jeff hasn't claimed to have originated the term, in
>any of his writings that I've seen.

Ah, I misunderstood his discussion in _To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak
the Truth_.  When he discussed the roots of the word, and his specific
meaning in using it, I thought he meant that *he* had generated it from
those roots.

Thanks for the correction.

>"Hoplophobe" is used in current psychiatric literature.

Presumably, it is thus used in the more general sense?

>Kirk Hays - NRA Life.

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Militia's and the right to keep and bear arms
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:41:36 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 17dqkmINNqgq@agate.berkeley.edu, fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary) writes:

>Madison didn't want to comp~rletely rule out peace time standing armies
>so he drafted a compromise position into the Second Amendment: That
>militias are necessary and (by implication) supperior to standing 
>armies for the "defense of a free state."

You only make my case.  There was a debate over the need for militias and
standing armies.  The federalists got their standing army and the anti-
federalists their reference to militias.  It is perfectly reasonable to
assume that the federalists were satisfied that the 2nd contained enough of
a hedge with "well-regulated militia" to imply government control.  That
language was necessary to gain compromise on the issue.

>>That is why you don't find any minutes to the Constitutional Convention.  They
>>were deliberately destroyed to prevent just the kind of nitpicking argument that
>>"original intent" theorists like to make.
>
>This is not true: The convention didn't have official minutes, but Madison
>took detailed notes (he was, I believe, secretary for the concvention)
>which were widely distributed and published.

Again, you make my claim.  Madison had no authority to publish his notes as an
official record.  There was no official record, because the delegates wanted to
be free to make any argument.  Madison has been accused of distorting the record
through publication of his notes.  He was under no obligation to record every
point of view or even represent fairly the views that he opposed.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland)
Subject: Re: CLINTON NEW TEXT: GUN CONTROL
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:40:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.193011.578@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:

>  In particular, in consultation both with gun manufacturers and
>  concerned citizen groups

Bill Ruger and HCI, no doubt...

> the Bush Administration has:
>  o    Proposed legislation to prohibit the importation,
>       manufacturing, transfer, or sale of high-capacity gun
>       magazines (over 15 rounds) for use by private citizens.

Hang onto those Glock 17s, they're about to start appreciating.  And
stock up on magazines.

I suppose we're expected to be grateful - 15 rounds is surprisingly
generous in this context.  "If six is good enough for the NYPD, it's
good enough for anyone", right? :-(

>  o    Suspended, as authorized by existing law, the importation
>       for sale on the civilian market of several types of
>       military-style weapons.

What the hell is a "military style" weapon?  One with a cammo finish
(which is, ironically, useful for hunting)?   Or maybe it means any gun
that costs a lot more than it should. :-)  Does it mean any weapon
which the military uses?  That would be pretty much all of them.  (OK,
we can keep our single-action revolvers and muzzle-loaders.  Oh happy
day.)

Or maybe they mean guns that LOOK like something a T.V. bad-guy would
use, just like the California "Assault Weapon" ban.  Wanna bet that's
what this turns out to be?  Oh, those evil banana magazines and black
plastic stocks, they kill so many people!

=====================================================================
Reid Kneeland
reid@ttidca.tti.com  (that's MISTER reid@ttidca.tti.com to you!)
{philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,rdlvax,retix,rutgers}!ttidca!reid
Transaction Technology Inc., Santa Monica, CA, USA (310) 450-9111 x2499
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily etc etc...

Never trust a man who can count to 1,023 on his fingers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak)
Subject: Denver Police Kill Another Un-Armed Person, Today!
Originator: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:06:27 GMT

Just heard this on the news while at lunch today:

Denver police were called to the scene of a domestic
disturbance.  Upon arival they attempted to contact a black
male, (age  ~21) in front of the location.  The man was
wearing shorts, shoes, and had a shirt in his hand. The man
fled.  At least one police officer gave chase.  The chase led into
a alley where witness claim to have heard the man yell:
"Don't shoot me, don't shoot me", followed by the sounds
of several shots.

The "suspect" was declared dead at the scene.  He was NOT ARMED
in any manner, though the talking heads were pointing out that
"he did have a shirt in his hand which the police officer might
have mistook for a weapon". [Sure, I have plenty of shirts that
look like Glock 19s].  The victim was a student at Regis University,
and had NO CRIMINAL RECORD.  At this time it is not even know if
he was involved in the original disturbance.  [although this
is likely].  The officer involved was a rookie.

I guess in Denver they do just take you out into the alley
and shoot you through the head.

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER NOT!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 22:45:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: N/I

In article <1992Aug21.183732.11393@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
[ ... ]
>them lose out on some drug busts (for as long as this idiotic War on
>Drugs continues) because they get flushed, rather than continue to
>allow masked SWAT team members to stage a no-knock bust.

Considering that no-knock searches were allegedly invented for drug busts,
I'm really kind of surprised that the Crash-N-Trash teams haven't run into
a house or two that was suddenly full of something like DMSO/LSD aerosol.
Maybe we just didn't hear about it ...?
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: War on Drugs  (was Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: 28 Aug 1992 04:30:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: A Glorified, Overheated Swamp

In article <1992Aug18.154011.24034@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> aj336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Pat Weber) writes:
- When the police want you, they'll come for you in the middle of the
- night, your neighbors will ignore it, and the police would just
- LOVE to shoot you if you thought of resisting. So what you gonna do?
- Go downtown & shoot up the IRS building - the police will have you
- and 'your revolutionaries' gunned down quicker than you can say
- Posse Comitatus.

	Wow!  Do you mean the police finally won the War on Drugs? 

	If not, why do you think they can win against a group that 
   may be less centralized than drug cartels, a group that would be 
   motivated more by idealism than by greed.  If the police are as 
   efficient as you seem to believe (rounding-up/gunning-down all
   the freedom fighters in one fell swoop) then it should be such 
   a simple matter for the police to eliminate gangs and narcotics
   traffic.  They haven't, so maybe you're just blowing smoke.  

	OBTW, they're not 'my revolutionaries' if they're shooting 
   up the IRS builing.  My revolutionaries would use something more 
   effective than small arms fire when trying to destroy a building.   :-) 


-- 
 Jordan M Kossack   |   "To use taxes to cure a deficit is like using 
 kossack@rice.edu   |    leeches to cure anemia."    -- Ronald Reagan 
  +1 713 240 2073   |   "Voodoo Economics!"            -- George Bush 
  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: Time to Fight
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 03:42:25 GMT

cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

>No-knocks are very, very dangerous things for the police to be doing.  
>If they insist on doing them, they had better get them right.  Right 
>now, it is safer for the police to do no-knocks on the wrong house 
>than on the right one.  Small wonder it's becoming a problem.

Perhaps the problem is that the police have also realised this?

Geoff Miller
Computer Centre, Australian Defence Force Academy
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: What's wrong with using aliases?
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:42:19 GMT

In article <2488@cronos.metaphor.com> howard@Metaphor.COM (Lee Howard) writes:
> On another note- I signed up for the NRA-ILA BBS that was advertised in
> the last issue of the American Rifleman. Has anyone else tried this BBS?
>
What's the number?

T. Archer, Netrunner
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 3
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:44:21 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / minh@inst-sun1.jpl.nasa.gov (Minh Lang) /  3:24 pm  Aug 24, 1992 /

>In article <9g_nn5#@dixie.com> John De Armond, jgd@dixie.com writes to
>Rick:
>>Rick, after someone you have pissed off with this thread drops a
>>dime on you, the storm troopers come and break down your door
>>and after the smoke clears, you see your wife or child on the
>>floor with their brains on the wall, let's see if YOU accept the
>>explanation of it being an "innocent mistake." I want to be
>>there up close and personal to hear your wailing.   
>
>John, I would like to also.

Well, gee, I hope you guys burn in Hell too.  

If it happens, our reaction will not be to charge the assualt rifle 
armed police.  

If you drop the dime, I will be around to take you, (and them) to court.  

Sheesh, how childish.

Rick.
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 2 (was Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:34:49 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

minh@inst-sun1.jpl.nasa.gov (Minh Lang) writes:

>In article <1992Aug27.163102.7416@microsoft.com> Alan Ezekiel,
>alane@microsoft.com writes:
>>mode when Deputy Aston shot her.  This was one of the factors which
>>convinced Mr. Canova that the shooting was accidental: he believes
>>that Deputy Aston could not have _intentionally_ fired a single shot
>>when the weapon was in full-auto mode -- therefore it must have been
>>an unintentional accident.   [Source: Seattle Times 8/8/92, page 1]

>I believe that you cannot UNINTENTIONALLY fire a single shot with
> a weapon set to auto. If it was really unintentionally, i t should be
>a burst. At least I have tried that in the pass
>on several full automatic weapons such as the AK47, M16, Thompson
>and the M60 machine guns. I couldn't let out less than 2 shots no
>matter how fast I released the trigger. 

I agree.  About the best I've ever been able to do on my Mac-10 was 2 
rounds.  It would be interesting to do a measurement to see if the trigger
could physically return in one shot on a high rate-of-fire weapon like
the MP5.  I doubt it.  

If good 'ole Tony really did pull the trigger from a fear reflex as 
some have postulated and the gun was on full auto, I'd expect to find
a whole magazine full of slugs in the wall and the woman as he 
tightly clutched the trigger in a death grip.

More likely what happened was that good 'ole Tony stormed the house
with the selector on semi-auto. (if his training was at all like mine)
After he toasted that woman, he probably thought he'd have to hose 
down the whole house because all the other occupants would assault him in
a frenzied, crack-inspired rage of revenge so he flipped it over to
full auto.

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: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Gun Owners should register to vote
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:25:13 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


From _The_Gun_Owners_ July-August 1992
 
ANTI-GUNNERS DON'T WANT YOU TO REGISTER
 
    The anti-gunners figure it will be easier to take the guns of gun
owners away if they do not register to vote.  That makes it easier to
get anti-gun candidates elected.
    But the matter is more serious than just elections.  Sure, maybe
a gun owner lives in a jurisdiction where only anti-gunners tend to
run for office.  But American government is not based only on the
ballot box.
    There is also the jury box.  And if you are not registered to
vote, you do not get to serve on a jury because you will never be
called to begin with.  If gun owners are never on juries, then it is
much easier for anti-gun prosecutors and judges to punish gun owners
and pamper criminals.
    As the Fully Informed Jury Association has been pointing out, 
juries have the right to determine not only the facts of a case (did
somebody do what they are charged with) but also whether the law 
ought to be applied in that case.  Judges often say to the contrary,
but they are not telling the truth.
    Think of it.  Did a gun owner who had not registered to vote send
Bernhard Goetz to jail?  He could have done so if he would have been
picked for that jury and had voted to aquit in spite of the judge's
instructions.  But he was not there to exercise his right as a fully
informed jury member because he did not register to vote.
    So, for every gun owner who is not registered to vote: whose side
are you on?
 
_The_Gun_Owners_ is the official newsletter of 
_Gun_Owners_of_America,_Inc._, an organization dedicated to the 
preservation of our Second Amendment rights.  Membership information
may be obtained by writing to GOA, Suite 102, 8001 Forbes Place,
Springfield, VA 22151, or by calling (703)321-8585
 
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
----------------------------------------------------------------
Use your ultimate firepower:  VOTE!
-- 
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Organization: none
	<183141@pyramid.pyramid.com>
	<1992Aug21.193837.22744@ncmicro.lonestar.org>
	<1992Aug24.162823.3209@bluemoon.rn.com>
Date: 27 Aug 92 02:33:06

>>>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 92 16:28:23 GMT, grant@bluemoon.rn.com (Grant DeLorean) said:

>  This is a god example of why the Lamberts are in my kill file; they go on
> at great length on subjects they know little or nothing about. 

Another member of the Rifleman school of smearing.  What subject do I
go on at great length about that I know nothing about?

Tim
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Killing bers with handguns  (Was:  Re:  A random thought)
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:11:12 GMT

In article <LEE.92Aug21081853@coredump.npac.syr.edu>, lee@coredump.npac.syr.edu
(Lee C Brink) writes:

> Try "The starvation is mostlty due to hunters having wiped out all the natural
> predators."  

Not really true.  While some hunters do hunt predators, the majority are
wiped out by urban growth.  Wolves are rather shy animals, and you won't
generally find them where there are lots of people.  Other predators get
wiped out by various toxins, and waste by-products of civilization (DDT
is most responsible for the Bald Eagle's troubles).

> The whole ecology was stable before we started killing "pests" such as wolves,

That's not really true, either.  Stability is a relative thing.  If you
look at rabbit and fox populations, you'll see that they fluctuate wildly
over a several-year period (rabbit populations boom, fox populations boom,
rabbits die of starvation, and disease, followed by fox population falling).
The populations are probably more stable, now, with direct intervention by
humans.  The state DNR groups issue a number of permits based on current
population.  This adds a damping effect into the population/starvation cycle.

> Hunters take the weak and the stupid.  You'll notice (I have here in Western NY

Mostly the stupid....  ;-)

> at least) that during deer season, the deer are almost non-existant, but
> as soon as the season is over, the deer come out to "play."

You've noticed that, too...

> Also note that hunters are only allowed to shoot buck (In NY), unless they
> get a doe permit.  Doe permits are hard to get & even then allow you only
> to kill a limited number (1-3 I believe.  It's been a while since I've seen
> the regulations).

In Michigan they used to issue a doe permit (allowing those with a regular
license to take one deer of either sex), they are now issuing "bonus deer"
licenses (you may take a buck with the regular license, plus one antlerless
deer on the bonus license).  The number of doe permits are the damping term
in the system.  And then there are the archery licenses, and black powder...

> I see.  Killing the meat & eating it yourself is inhumane, but cooping up cows
> and chickens in small areas with little light, no movement, and poor living 
> conditions are.  Who's the hypocrite?

Hear, hear!

-- 
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
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:20410 alt.society.civil-disob:91
From: jaf@a2.cim.cdc.com (James Foster x2197)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.society.civil-disob
Subject: Re: Black Market guns
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:00:24 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Distribution: usa

In article <viking.715306690@vincent1.iastate.edu>, viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
|> In article <6#gnvkn.nagle@netcom.com> nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:
|> 
|> >       I've given up on gun control, but ammo control has possibilities.
|> >Ammo has a shelf life.
|> 
|> 	Don Baldwin was visiting Iowa this past week, and when I mentioned
|> that rifles and shotguns were sold at K-mart, he didn't believe it.  So I
|> took him to K-mart and showed him.  While I was there, I bought some .30-30
|> ammunition as it will be a few weeks until I can get back to my reloading
|> press.  Guess what?
|> 
|> 	Ammunition that can be fired in a pistol, when sold, must be
|> recorded along with the buyers name, ssn, address, and the like.  I did
|> not have this problem when I bought 12ga shotshells, nor when buying
|> black powder.  I took a look at the ammunition covered, and it's a huge
|> variety.  Everything from .22LR to .30-30 to 7mm Remington Magnum.  Who
|> shoots these with a pistol?  All populat rounds are presented.  Of notable
|> exception was the 10mm round, and the .454 Casull.  Obviously, neither of
|> these are shot in pistols, right?
|> 
|> 	I hate to think the government can know for the next two years that
|> I have a .30-30, be it rifle or pistol.  How did this one get by?
|> 
|> <Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
|> <z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
|> <viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
|> < ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >

My guess is that this is a state law or local ordinance.  Minnesota had this
about 10-12 years ago.  They dropped it because there was no value in it.
The REALLY stupid part of it is that the non 'normal' pistol calibers are
included because the specialty bolt action pistols can or have been chambered
for them.  I'm sure that many crimes have been commited with Thompson Contender's
and Remington XP-100's (is that the right model? I remember it as something like
that).  After all, the single shot, bolt action assualt pistol with a scope, carried
in a bandolier holster, is a concealable and fiercely destructive weapon that is the
gun of choice of drug dealers world wide. B^) B^) B^) B^) B^) B^) B^) B^) B^) B^)

Jim  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns