HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dennis@bluemoon.rn.com (Dennis Carney)
Subject: PROponent -- Article "DANGEROUS DUCK ORDNANCE"
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 01:17:49 EDT

DANGEROUS DUCK ORDNANCE...

       While law makers are trying to constantly add to the list of
banned firearms and dangerous ordnance they seem to have missed
one: exploding ducks.  People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
(PETA) recently brought animal cruelty charges against a duck farm
for force feeding ducks until they "exploded".  PETA secretly
videotaped the farm's operation and turned the tape over to the
Sullivan County N.Y. District Attorney.  According to the August 21
Gun Week, the charges were dropped when the D.A. "found no
violations of the state's Agricultural and Markets law."
       Cornell Coop Extension Bureau pointed out that farm
"productivity is related to animal's welfare" and "to get the best
production animals have to be healthy."  Farm spokesman Howard
Joseph said, "PETA is an organization that seems to be committed to
wiping out all animal agriculture."  PETA naturally claimed the
D.A. "caved in to poultry industry pressure" and has urged New York
Gov. Mario Cuomo to investigate the case.  I am sure that this
level of involvement is necessary to prevent serious injuries from
"exploding" ducks.

...

This is from:
    dennis@bluemoon.rn.com
---- The Soviet Union Died, But the Communists Live On ----
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment Myths
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:22:00 GMT

`   "The Second Amendment is as vague as it is ambiguous.  Some think
`   it upholds the collective right of state militias to bear arms,
`   while others, probably more accurate in so far as original intent
`   is concerned, argue that it protects the right of individuals to
`   keep and bear arms..."

I think perhaps a reference is in order here:

AMENDMENT 2 - MILITIA AND THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.

What is vague or ambiguous about that?  It is no more vague or ambiguous
than any of the others.  Perhaps if it had been worded like the first
ammendment (which most people defend so staunchly):

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of gun control,
or prohibiting the free exercise or firearm use thereof; or abridging
the freedom to keep and bear Arms, or to use them; or the right of the
people to assemble at firing ranges and hunting ground, and to assure a
free state of government by way of a well regulated Militia in the
event that mere petitions do not succeed in a redress of grievances."

swood
-- 
+========================+    -------_________     +=========================+
| WANTED - DEAD OR ALIVE |    o\ o \     ____|o    |  If you see this lure,  |
|  Creek Chub "Plunker"  |      \___\_-o-    viv   | PLEASE send me email!!! |
+========================+            viv          +=========================+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Re: Update: Seattle Gun Buy-Back
Date: 04 Sep 92 21:17:45 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Keywords: ugh

joeha@microsoft.com (Joseph Harper) writes:
   [regarding the gun buy-back program]

>So, the "benefactor" businessman wishes to remain
>anonymous.  And the list of businesses that have
>donated has not been made public.
>
>Question of the day: You don't suppose it's because
>they are worried at losing business, do you?

A *PARTIAL* list of contributing corporations includes:

   KUBE (a local radio station)
   the Bon Marche
   McDonald's restaurants
   Viacom Cablevision
   U.S. West
   First Interstate Bank
   the Seattle Seahawks

[source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 9/4/92, p. E2]

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 05:42:09 GMT

In article <82273@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
> For example, the
>Senate, at one point, rejected the insertion of the following language in one
>version of the 2nd...

Just to be pedantic, that was the House, proposed by the Mr. Burke,
at the request of his state and constituants.

At the time, the Senate met behind closed doors, and I haven't been
able to find records of their debates.

>I don't agree.  I think that the Federalists were not able to block the
>2nd, but they were able to prevent the Antifederalists from destroying
>the ability of the nation as a whole to defend itself with a coherent 
>armed force.  The Antifederalists got the 2nd as a sop--to prevent the
>feds from disarming the sovereign states and preserve the old status quo
>that they enjoyed under the Articles of Confederation.  Their own armed
>forces.

The anti-federalists may have wanted this, but the Second Amendment
did not preserve the states "own armed forces." The militia was still
a federal militia, and was still subject to federal regulation under
Article One, Section Eight (As evidenced by the federal Militia Act
of 1792.) The Second Amendment assured that the militias could arm
and train themselves, should the government neglect this. Preservation
of the militia, even if not under state control, was sufficient to 
satisfy the anti-federalists.

                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder


                                           
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: My first letter to the editor
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 04:24:11 GMT

In article <1635@tnc.UUCP>
m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY) writes:

>I'm not surprised at the way they edited it.  Most newspapers, if
>given the chance, will edit to make the writer appear to be a rabid,
>commie-hatin' liberal-stompin' don't-even-*think*-of-takin'-my-bang-bang-toys rdneck, even if the original letter was rational and well
>written.
>
>When RESCUE 911 can get away with the '43 to 1' lie, we have no chance
>of getting a fair hearing in our modern-day court of public opinion.

     About all you can do is try and present your side, with facts to
back you up, whenever somebody brings up this sort of thing in your
presence.  We can hope calm discussion will help things.

     But then, I'm voting Libertarian.  What do I know about
political success?  :-(

========================================================================
| 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: A question on U.S. Constitution
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 22:14:38 GMT

In article <fzqnb1r.feustel@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
>I read in a book on Constitutional history that President *Jefferson* ordered
>ships to be seized if there was even a *possibility* that the ship
>might try to violate an embargo that Jefferson had imposed. Makes
>civil seizure as we know it look relatively benign.

The enforcement of the embargo was probably the most questionable action
of the Jefferson administration, but even so it wasn't quite as bad
as it sounds: To enforce the embargo (imposed by Congress, by the way:
Jefferson wanted a war with Britan. The embargo basically put that
war off until 1812), all ships leaving American ports had to have a 
permit, certifying they were not going to England. Any ship setting 
sail without a permit was subject to seizure. That isn't too different
from our modern import/export laws, but at the time this was an
novel extension of presidential powers.

If you want a really excessive example of civil seizures, the Sedition Act
of 1798 allowed the President to sieze any printing press which he
determined was being used for seditious purposes. Fortunately, this 
was never accepted as a precedent, since everyone except the most
extreme Federalists the law violently unconsitutional.

                                                     Frank Crary
                                                     CU Boulder
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: My first letter to the editor
Date: 16 Sep 92 00:43:33 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


I'm not surprised at the way they edited it.  Most newspapers, if
given the chance, will edit to make the writer appear to be a rabid,
commie-hatin' liberal-stompin' don't-even-*think*-of-takin'-my-bang-bang-toys redneck, even if the original letter was rational and well
written.

When RESCUE 911 can get away with the '43 to 1' lie, we have no chance
of getting a fair hearing in our modern-day court of public opinion.
 
Anyway, if you get the letter written, I'd like a copy for reference.

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.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 04:14:38 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>>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?

	As I believe others will certainly state many times, the first
clause is not relevant to the rest of the amendment so far as the law is
concerned.  It is a statement, not a limiting clause.

>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.

	I'd say this depends on who you think of as the State.  A universal
RKBA contributes to the security of a free state when that state is the
people, because it does indeed contribute to the insecurity of government.
These are both excellent qualities that I happen to think of as Good.

<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. >

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: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 05:03:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.001351.21247@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>>But, thanks to the gun nuts in this country who'd give up their kids
>>before their guns, you have to assume that the loonie who broke into
>>your place HAS one of the goddamned things, and any martial art doesn't
>>teach you to catch a bullet in your teeth.

Hardly fair to the "gun nuts", since no one is against keeping guns away
from "loonies" and criminals, and a "loonie" such as you describe
probably got his weapon on the black market. 

However, I'd have to disagree about martial arts: At close range, knifes
or even unarmed martial arts are as effective as firearms (close
range here means less than, say, a meter or two.) A gun would be
much more damaging, if it hit, but it is very predictable compared
to a knife: It can only fire in one, obvious direction. Also martial arts
training is usefull, if you want to keep an opponent at a distance
(the sensible thing to do if you have a gun...)

>	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.

That's a fairly unrealistic comparison: 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...) 

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton,talk.abortion
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Subject: Why Darcy STILL Can't Read  (was Re: democratic platform
Followup-To: alt.flame
Reply-To: kossack@qvi.com
Organization: format a:  
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 05:06:41 GMT

	Darcy ...  Oh, Darcy ... 

	Why do you keep posting your tripe to talk.abortion, especially  
   when you're not bloody well even talking about abortion?  A hint, Lad;
   Try discussing RKBA in talk.politics.guns.  Given your penchant for 
   repeatedly crossposting to inappropriate newsgroups, one might think 
   you daft ... or intentionally obnoxious.  The latter seems likelier.  

 
In article <1992Sep8.004843.17356@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
- >By federal law (USC Title X) the militia includes all males age 17 to 45, and
- >all members of state militias (many states have more inclusive militia laws,
- >that include women in this age range as well.) By Supreme COurt ruling
- 
- Constitution, and is therefore irrelevant, since the 2nd Amendment does not
- empower Congress to modify the operative definition of "militia" at will.

	Nor does it empower you to do so, Darcy.  

-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  Don't Miss Meals 
  kossack@qvi.com  |       Bag Your Diet
  +1 713 240 2073  |            Eat More Fast Food 
  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: Seattle Buy-Back Update
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
	<92Sep8.173155edt.47951@neat.cs.toronto.edu>
	<BuC2Fr.Gxs@matilda.vut.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:22:31 GMT

He's back......

In article <BuC2Fr.Gxs@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au
(David Bowman ) writes:

   The woman was right. Don't be so silly! 

Regardless of your opinion on gun control, the woman was not right in
any sense.  Her son was of age, personally owned a firearm, and was
not in violation of any law.

By this idiotic post, you again show your contempt of any law (as
opposed to your own personal opinions concerning right and wrong).

At least, in this latest incarnation, you show your stripes early
rather than waiting until someone with a short memory treated you as
reasonable.  Good work.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
From: mcbeeb@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (Brian Mcbee)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: So... Why have a standing military?
Date: 6 Sep 92 21:50:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University

Hmmmm. It is generally conceded that the United States has the most
powerful military in the world.  And recent discussions on tpg have 
convinced me that the US military could NOT conquer the population of
the US.  Which leads to the conclusion that no other country could
either.  So the question is:  If the job of the military is to protect
the polulation of the US against foreign aggression, why bother having
a standing military at all?

(Of course the real answer is that the job of the US military is NOT
to protect us from foreign aggression, but to protect OTHER countries
citizens from foreign aggression, and to occassionally commit some
foreign aggression of our own.)
From: garry@alice.att.com (garry hodgson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: A little on self defense...
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:02:33 GMT
Reply-To: garry@alice.UUCP ()
Organization: AT&T, Bell Labs

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 would disagree, vigorously.  I know a number of people who have, indeed,
made up such differences.  Do you seriously believe that MA training is
of no value in defending yourself?

"Just recreation", indeed.  Be serious.


-- 
Garry Hodgson			A slow winter day
AT&T Bell Labs			A night like forever
garry@alice.att.com		Sink like a stone
att!alice!garry			Float like a feather
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman)
Subject: Bogus Statistics Again
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:43:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.111518.26548@sinix.UUCP> ian@sinix.UUCP (Ian Malone) writes:
>Well, criminals in Switzerland < which has the highest incidence of violence
>with hand guns, other than the US of course> don't seem to get guns.  In
>Switzerland last year there were 7 murders with hand guns.  In the US there 
>were over 1000.  Why? The NRA keeps guns accessible to criminals.  Look to
>other countries if you don't believe me. That NRA/Right-wingnut talk about
>your rights being stripped away is ridiculous.  

Is it really true that the U.S. is the only country with more than 7 handgun
murders per year? Switzerland is in second place with 7? (By the way, we
had more than 10,000, not "more than 1000" --- don't sell us short over
here. Give credit where it is due. :-)  )

It's pretty amazing that there aren't any countries in the world that fall
between Switzerland and the U.S. in handgun murders.  Or do the rankings
change drastically when we include all handgun related crimes, which I
assume you meant when you said "violence with hand guns" ?

Please document this assertion. I don't believe it.  They didn't have
more handgun crime than Switzerland in Italy in any recent year? How
about Mexico?

By the way, the NRA has worked to get quick computer checking of criminal
records nationwide, as well as in several states. The NRA certainly does
not work to make guns more available to criminals.  NRA proposals have
been voted down by left wing pinheads like yourself in our Congress,
because they are afraid that instant background checks would lessen
support for outright bans, which is what they really want.  And the Brady
Bill, which they support instead of instant checks, only requires a
waiting period; it does not require criminal checks of any kind, and does
not assist states that want to do so.

Please get informed before you waste any more bandwidth.

As for Switzerland being #2 in the world in handgun violence, please post
the relevant statistics and the sources for them.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is seldom that any liberty is lost all at once." David Hume
|||  clc5q@virginia.edu (Clark L. Coleman)
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun Purchase Laws
Date: 4 Sep 92 21:28:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <1992Sep3.195252.9434@zip.eecs.umich.edu> kapson@quip.eecs.umich.edu (John Kapson) writes:

<   In article <22064@galaxy.ucr.edu> 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.

<   Any state.  Just go to the nearest big city, go downtown, and talk
<   to a few people who appear "streetwise".  It helps if you don't look
<   like a cop, BTW.

	Uh, he might have meant "legally"......but Kapson raises
	a very good point indeed.

<   >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.


	Note that Kalifornia now requires virtually ALL transactions
	to go through an FFL, not just transactions that involve
	a dealer. Other States have not followed this lead, not 
	yet at least.
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Seattle Buy-Back Update
Keywords: dumb idiotic not worth it
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:43:19 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep03.175510.26088@microsoft.com>, joeha@microsoft.com (Joseph Harper) writes:

> Fred Rivara, center director, said Charles

I can't find any reference in the text as to what "center" this is...

> Callahan, research associate, will try to
> determine whether the guns were turned in by
> "people most likely to misuse them."  The study
> asks questions on age and sex, why the person had
> the weapon and why he or she turned it in.

I think this in itself is damned interesting.  If done by an UNBIASED
source, of course.  (Exactly what "center" is this, again?)  I'm quite
sure it will show that the weapons were turned in by the innocent and
the elderly.  Of course, if done by the "Center to Stop the Violence"
or whatever "center" this is, someone will trot out some study saying 
that the innocent and the elderly are at great risk for gun accidents,
and the whole thing will be called a great success.
-- 

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: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:37:06 GMT

In article <LAMBERT.92Sep15160023@cello23.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au> lambert@cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
>> In England, Canada and two Australian provinces (those places
>> I have seen statistics for) there was no decrease in homicides associated
>> with their gun control laws:

>You must have seen different statistics from me.  In all the places
>that you mentioned, there was a decrease in the  homicide rate
>associated the gun control laws.  (The decrease in Canada after 1978
>was not statistically significant...

Excuse me, no statistically significant decrease associated with 
gun control laws (the drop in Australia was statistically significant
but part of a decade-long decline, not associated with the gun control
laws passed half-way through the decline.)

                                                  Frank Crary
                                                  CU Boudler

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns