HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbs@rti.rti.org
Subject: Re: Clinton bans imports of guns&ammo already
Organization: Joe's Bar and Grill
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 14:59:38 GMT

In article <1k0i70INNnl2@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb063@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher J. Crobaugh) writes:
<
<At this weekend's gun show, a dealer I talked to who sells AKS's
<claimed that on Friday the US State Department refused to issue
<whatever permits (Form 6?) is required; the dealer claimed that
<all firearm and ammo importing has stopped as of Friday (Jan 22).
<I have no idea if this is true, but I suggest a flood of phone 
<calls to the Capitol switchboard (to call congressmen and senators
<) starting at 0900 EST Monday Jan 25th.
<It looks like the government of the United States is ready to 
<declare war on the citizens of same who insist on exercising 
<certain constitutionally guaranteed rights.

I just called a local dealer and then the NRA-ILA and neither one has heard
anything about any of this.  I think someone misinformed you.

  -joe
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Point By Point (Was: "The coming shootout over guns")
Date: 21 Jan 93 22:24:48 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan20204103@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
writes:
><Four or five years ago, a columnist friend came back from 
><crisscrossing the country and announced: "The rest of the country now knows 
><what New York has known for years - the police can't help us."  What he 
><meant is that the American public had lost its last illusions about 
><violence:  that it was essentially a problem of the inner city and the drug 
><trade, and that the police could protect us from it.
>	
>	Possibly. Possibly what he meant was, "The liberals have
>	released so many lunatics and criminals that the police
>	are swamped and cannot respond to cries for help; we are
>	all on our own, again".

With possibly a wee bit of help from President Bush (oops, ex-President
Bush), whose brilliant plan to fill our jails with pot smokers forced
the release of violent criminals...

   don
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Talk Show Poll Results
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 09:06:14 GMT

	For the record, a police officer here shot at a car that was
fleeing the scene of the crime. He forgot the windshield was in the
way.  They made him a detective in order to keep him off the streets.
I have this upon the word of a former chief of police.

	Upon the word of the current normal-duty police officer, one of
my class-mates is a genu-whine police officer.  He is not allowed by the
department to carry a gun.  This is a town of <1000, all of whom show
remarkable sense in now allowing this guy anything sharper than a Twinkie.

	It works both ways with regards to cops.

Despite the annoying weather, I might not move to sunny California.  This
sort of common sense is increasingly hard to find.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fist@iscp.bellcore.com (Richard Pierson)
Subject: Re: Re: Fort Collins Gun Ban!!  Jan. 19
Organization: Bellcore
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 18:04:00 GMT

In article <8110315@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, ron@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ron Miller)
writes:
|> Report on the outcome of the Ft. Collins meeting....
|> 
|> City Council's agenda was rather long. The item of concern did not 
|> come up for consideration until after midnite. The meeting started
|> at 1830. 

For those of you who have never gotten involved in any
political meetings a favorite tactic of POLS is to wait
you out, conduct BS for 5 hours or so till late and then
when everyone is gone (maybe even the reporter) pass the
"hot" items. EVERY COUNCIL, SCHOOL BOARD and "SMALL TOWN"
govt(tm) does this. I used to have to fight this while
on a rescue squad and it got to a point where members would
take the next day off ahead of time, some meetings broke up
at 4am, but we lasted, they kept trying to turn our volunteer
squad into a paid dept with the corresponding $BIG BUDGET$. 

-- 
##########################################################
There are only two types of ships in the NAVY; SUBMARINES 
                 and TARGETS !!!
#1/XS1100LH	#2/10/10/92
Richard Pierson E06584 vnet: [908] 699-6063
Internet: fist@iscp.bellcore.com,|| UUNET:uunet!bcr!fist  
#include <std.disclaimer> My opinions are my own!!!
I Don't shop in malls, I BUY my jeans, jackets and ammo
in the same store.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Bazooka for sale!
Date: 25 Jan 1993 02:20:31 GMT
Organization: Hand Held Products, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: dale.handheld.com

In article <m0nEEIy-000QzoC@aton.abo.fi> skronkvi@aton.abo.fi (Stefan Kronkvist  
INF) writes:
> 
> If you can't fight it,make it legal!
> ------------------------------------
> 
>              Cocaine is illegal,but there are still persons who are useing  
it.
> Shoud cocaine be legal? I mean "the bad ones" will allways have access to  
drugs
> eaven if they are illegal.
> Should bazookas be legal? You can get one if you really want to.
> Should burglary be legal? You can't stop it (You could put taxes on the  
stolen
> goods etc...)
> Should rape and murder be legal? It is impossible to stop so why keep  
fighting
> it?You could get a license to kill or rape for example 8 persons/year.
> Should guns be legal?The "bad ones" will allways have access to guns.
> 
> 
> It is a question of morale.If there were no burglarys,rapes,murders etc...
> you would need no laws against it,but since there are the government have to
> pass laws against it.
> 
[...]
> skronkvi@aton.abo.fi
> 
> "-Quite few in UK thinks mortars should be legal eaven if one have been used
>   against the prime-ministers appartement"

It's quite simple, really.  You should be able to do anything you want as long  
as you do not harm or injure others.  Personal use of drugs, in a manner so as  
to not harm others, should be permitted.  You have the right to ruin your own  
life, if you so desire.

You should be able to own anything you can reasonably be expected to be able to  
use without harming or injuring others.  That includes any weapons you can  
operate without harming others.  This would exclude private ownership of atomic  
weapons, for example, as there is no way to 'operate' one without harming  
others.

I do not preclude the use of weapons or other tools in self-defense, as long as  
whatever you use, again, will not harm others, except obviously, your intended  
target.

That a weapon, tool, car, etc., can be used in a wrongful manner should never  
be cause to remove the availability of said tool from those who will use the  
tool properly.  A tool is a lifeless thing, the operator animates it, and is  
therefor completely responsible for it's safe use, or lack thereof.

These are my own feelings, not meant to be forced on anyone.

Jim
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Usefulness of weapons (was Re: Galen Disarms)
Date: 21 Jan 1993 22:13:00 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan20.175450.15631@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> geff@iastate.edu (Geff Underwood) writes ...
> >It seems that using a gun is, in general, the _safest_ thing to do when
> >somebody tries to rob or assault you.
> 
> I find it ironic that in Somalia US armed forces are removing guns
                                      ^^^^^
> from the population so as to promote stability, safety, and order,
> while in the US gun advocates are using the same line to justify
> owning whatever weapons they wish.

Sorry -- just pointing out the REAL irony, which you obviously missed.
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...

From: post@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (David Post)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 03:23:17 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Fort Collins Gun Ban!!  Jan. 19
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

Hold on folks!

While it is good to support causes we believe in,  we are getting a little
ahead of ourselves in this topic.

talk.politics.guns is a world-wide group with regular contributors in
Australia, Canada, the Nordic nations, Europe and Great Britain and so on.  

It is hard for me to believe that someone in, say, Switzerland is all that
interested in the local politics of a city in Colorado, USA!

Having said that, let me speculate about why this showed up in this group at
all.

Last week, I sent out a Firearms rights alert about some local politics.  I
sent it to the Colorado Shooters Information mailing list moderator and a
few individuals who I thought may be interested, who I knew personaly or who
had made "activist" statements somewhere on usenet.

Before I knew it, it had been posted to rec.guns by someone other than me.
I e-mailed a followup and correction to the moderator for the sake of
completeness and continuity.  I thought that would be the end of it.

Then I noticed that my followup appeared here in talk.politics.guns.  It
even showed my name as sender.  I did not send it, but it may have been sent
by the rec.guns moderator ( Jim??? ).  So for the sake of completeness and
continuity, I posted the first mailing so folks would know what was going
on.

I did not expect followups from others.

My purpose was to keep it local, until such time as the issue attained some
national interest, which it didn't.

So now I have two questions:

1)  Should strictly local issues regarding firearms stay local though local
distribution and kept out of rec.guns and talk.politics.guns?

2)  Were there folks out there who would like this kind of information who
did not receive it from me personally or through the Colorado Shooters
Information mailing list?


David Post  davep@hpfcpp.fc.hp.com  hplabs!hpfcla!post
From: speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Bazooka for sale!
Date: 25 Jan 1993 11:43:30 +1100
Organization: werple public-access unix, Melbourne
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au

Original Message From: finn@isi.edu (Greg Finn)
 
>In article <m0nEEIy-000QzoC@aton.abo.fi> skronkvi@aton.abo.fi (Stefan
>Kronkvist INF) writes:
  .
  .
>There is also another attitude against guns.  It does not make you a
man if
>you own a gun.  People think that you are kind of wierd if you are a
>handgun owner.
>
>        Just what 6,000,000 Jews thought in Europe a generation or so
>ago.  Of course, none of them have any opinions now.  They were all
>murdered by what was arguably the most intellectually and
>technologically advanced country in the world.  How about 2,000,000
>Kulaks in Russia, or a million Azerbajanis, or a few million
>Cambodians?  They are all dead too.  They had one thing in common:
>They trusted their government.  When that trust was found to be
>wrongly placed, they had no means to defend themselves.  Exit many
>millions.
 
While not wishing to be pedantic, I cannot see how these people's
trust/faith in their government caused their demise at the hands of an
aggressor. In the case of Hitler, if the jews had more personal guns
this may have given him a better excuse to kill them.
 
All those Iraqis sitting like ducks in a shooting gallery in their
sand bunkers were all armed but were killed just the same.
 
>        If you wish to place so much faith in your government ...
>fine.  Don't ask me to.  Do you understand why the right to keep and
>bear arms was put into the USA constitution?  The people who wrote it
>knew that sooner or later any government can become tyrannical.  The
>fact that USA politicians are trying to remove that right from its
>citizens, inch by inch, is a bad sign.
 
And this is where Stefan's logic fails - he fails to realise the
"climate" in the USA. His situation doesn't dictate the need or want
for a gun, so he believes people in the USA should also have no need.
 
Are there any other countries made up of a union of sovereign states
which have experienced trouble within their union? Two come to mind,
the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom. One has broken up with some
civil wars breaking out, the other has had an ongoing "dispute" with
its Irish members and a more civil dispute with Scotland. On the basis
of these two examples, it may be prudent to ensure the retention of
the right to own guns, if you live in the USA.
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Text: New Brady Bill
Date: 26 Jan 1993 13:48:31 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com


Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it seems to impose the law only
on federally licensed dealers, distributors, manufacturors....

in other words, it doesn't seem to apply to "casual," private transfers
of firearms.

Is this so?

	Dave
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 21 Jan 1993 21:49:55 GMT
Organization: Sun
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <s#g3njl@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>
>Hi Joe.  My opinion is that a person should be taught *all* safety
>rules before handling a gun, but if that isn't possible, then the four
>key ones are: *all guns are loaded* (so treat 'em that way); don't
>point it at something you don't want to shoot; don't put your finger
>on the trigger until you are ready to shoot (i.e., inside trigger
>guard); and use the safety whenever possible.

Well, three out of four ain't too bad.

The fourth should have read: always be aware of what's behind your target.

John, just forget the "safeties" bit, it's extra, excess, unnecessary, and
going to eventually get you into trouble: safeties fail.

Use 'em if you have them, but *don't* rely on them.

My 9-year-old son gets it.  He got it down cold in the first 20 minutes.
It *can't* be that hard to learn!

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Law, inalienable Rights, and the Legitimate Use of Force
Date: 22 Jan 93 18:51:16 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


I happen to feel that use of deadly force to protect my property *is*
protecting my life, or at least a small piece of it.

Look at it this way: for every piece of personal property I own, I
have had to trade portions of my life to some employer in return for
wages.  So everything I own can be easily translated into the amount
of labor I had to perform to buy it and (if stolen from me) the amount
of labor required to replace it.

Thus any theft from me is a theft of some portion of my life.

We need to make things perfectly clear to these crooks: they will not
get away with their activities.  They *will* pay, if not in the courts
then in the street.

I've been rummaging through my collection of music, and came across
an old song by Twisted Sister: "Call For Street Justice."  Times are
getting pretty close to that song.

Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-A  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.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: A well-armed (and well-fed) society
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Distribution: talk
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:11:07 GMT

In article <NELSON.93Jan21232831@cheetah.clarkson.edu>, nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes:
|> We've often heard the assertion ``A well-armed society is a polite society.''
|> 
|> Well, I would add the clause ``A well-armed AND WELL-FED society ...'', after
|> viewing what the wide distribution of guns has done to Somalia.

As usual, Russ, you make a serious logic error by glossing over the
fact that the average citizen of Somalia *didn't* (and doesn't) have 
access to guns.

Only the thugs.

Sounds like the transformation you'd like to make to American
society, oddly enough.

-- 
Kirk Hays - NRA Life, seventh generation.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
do nothing."  -- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:10:59 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <1993Jan26.213145.13441@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <9301240005.45@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan20.040118.10573@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>You seem to be the only person here who doesn't seem to think that there
>>should be a quick check system in gun stores to eliminate criminals at
>>the point of sale.
>
>Kelly is confused.  I said that there doesn't seem to be any crime
>control benefit to such a system.  It may, or may not, have other
>benefits.  Some people are even known to support measures that have no
>tangible benefits.
>
>In fact, I have pushed for instant checks.

You can't expect that this country will go back to the days when buying
a gun was as anonymous as buying a pack of cigarettes.  Yes, if the US
constitution were followed letter for letter, then there would be no
oppressive gun laws, but unless you are planning on fomenting a large
scale revolution, it ain't gonna happen.

The quick check is about as liberal as some states/cities could ever get.

>>With your strong ideals, why do you continue to live in a state that only
>>gives CCW "to the very rich and well connected"?
>
>Perhaps because I don't cut off my nose to spite my face.

?

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Felons and the Restoration of Rights
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 16:05:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan19.204315.25213@cbfsb.cb.att.com> osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) writes:
>	our psychotic president made about a week ago?  He was addressing
>	some body of people.... cannot remember offhand right now... he
>	stated that our armed forces are doing "God's work".  I almost
>	fell out of my chair (which is saying a lot when you consider I was
>	sitting on the floor!!).  What do you folks thinkg of this?  Personally,
>	I think this has no place in such matters, but even so, to call the
>	wholesale murder of hundreds of thousands of civillians "Gods' work"
>	is so unfathomably obscene to me as to be nearly beyond comprehension.

Why's that? Killing people wholesale seems to have been one of God's favorite
passtimes back when He was more active. According to the Book, he drowned
an entire Egyptian army after killing the first born of every Egyptian
family. He caused the walls of Jericho to fall. He torched Sodom and
Gomorrah. And then there was the Flood. Killing Arabs of various kinds
seems to have been his favorite sport.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak)
Subject: Re: Law, inalienable Rights, and the Legitimate Use of Force
Originator: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 14:03:15 GMT


viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>	I believe it's Colorado that states any invasion of the home
>can be assummed to be with intent to harm and thus justifies the use of
>lethal force to stop the attack.  At least, this is the way the "Make
>My Day" law is bandied about in the media, and as you can tell from the
>moniker they've given it this might not be entirely true.

 Close!  It actually is: 
-----
18-1-704.5  Use of deadly force against intruders. 
(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have
a right to expect absolute saftety within their own homes.

(2) Nothwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, 
Any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force,
including deadly physical force, against another person when that other
person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant
has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the
dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to
commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry,
and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use
physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.

(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical 
force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section
shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.

(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical
force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section
shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from
the use of such force.
-----

 Of course since it is all based upon the occupants beliefs/perceptions,
 it's kind of hard to prosecute a person for shooting an intruder regardless
 if the intruders real intent.  It does boil down to intruder = fair game,
 unless there is some really bizzare set of circumstances.

 BTW: Unlike some State laws that various PDs tend to ignore, this one
 seems to be honored by all the PDs.  Maybe because in cases like this,
 the DA makes final determination as to if someone will be arrested/charged.

                                Bill Vojak
                                Bill_Vojak@stortek.com
				NRA, ILA,
                                Colorado Firearms Collation
------------------------------------------------------------
The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER NOT!)
The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER BIASED!)
------------------------------------------------------------

Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:27191 talk.politics.misc:70191