HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Random gun control
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:48:07 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


I hate to tell you, Reid, but we already have random frisking in the
streets of DC.

The cops grab anyone they feel like, under their version of 'probable
cause' (which is neither), and search pockets.  If you can't tell them
to the nearest dollar how much money you have, it is assumed that it
is for illegal activity and becomes the property of the searching
officer.

This is called 'civil forfeiture.'

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
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: weapon identification
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:35:53 GMT

In article <Jul.28.10.47.24.1992.1348@kinks.rutgers.edu> fjohnson@kinks.rutgers.edu (Floyd Johnson) writes:

>Do any of you know the make and caliber of a weapon called the "Street
>Sweeper". All I can surmise is that it's an automatic
>"intermediate"-somewhere in size between a pistol and a rifle.

>Floyd Johnson
>New Brunswick, NJ
>-- 
>*********************************************************************
>"It's 106 miles to Chicago. We've got a full tank of gas, half a pack
>of cigarettes, its' dark, and we're wearing shades." 
>                                       -_The Blues Brothers_

The Street Sweeper, I believe, is a 12 gageu shotgun with 12 revolving 
chambers.  I have also heard it referred to as a 12 by 12.

-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton,soc.women
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for guns and domestic violence
To: trytten@cps.msu.edu
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 21:31:31 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.134126.23113@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> trytten@ahmeek.cps.msu.edu (Deborah Trytten) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.050335.6275@adobe.com>, pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>|> The Presbyterians think it is morally wrong for a victim to take
>|> an attacker's life under ANY circumstances.
>
>You might want to check your sources a bit more carefully.  My
>parents are Presbyterians, and the church they attend believes no such
>thing. 

You might want to check their church a little more carefully.  In his
1986 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, the director of
the Presbyterian Church's Criminal Justice Program summarized the
policy of the General Assembly as:
    "The General Assembly has declared in the context of handgun control
    and in many othercontexts, that it is opposed to `the killing of
    anyone, anywhere, or any reason."

-andy

ps - That testimony is part of the Hearings on Legislation to Modify
the 1968 Gun Control Act, House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on
Crime; v 1, at 128.
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: msn@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Mike 'HK G3ZF Full-Auto' Newsome)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: for your reading enjoyment pt2
Date: 24 Jul 92 18:19:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

For ya'lls reading pleasure...

	ALLIGATOR Tue. 07-21-92 page 4.

	TAMPA - Police say they're worried about armed showdowns
	becoming too common in once quiet Tampa as robbery victims
	begin to retaliate.  Five times in less than three weeks
	someone has drawn a gun and fired at an accoused bandit.
	So far, one suspect has been killed and two wounded.  "We
	absolutely must caution our citizens to think about their
	actions," said Tampa Deputy Police Chief Curtis Lane. "What
	we can't afford is to get caught up in a Wild West mentality."

			Dooka yoroshiku onegaishimasu,
        ________                                    __  __  ______
       /  ____//__      msn@reef.cis.ufl.edu       / / / / / ____/
         /  //  //      Michael S. Newsome        / / / / / /__
          GUNDAM        3632 NW 46th Pl.         / / / / / ___/
        //  //          Gainesville, Fl.        / /_/ / / /
      //__//___/        32605-1046.            /_____/ /_/
        //______/       U.S.A.            The University of Florida
                                                  Alumnus

          Watashino hatano motoni watashiwa jiyuuni ikiru
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 19:58:18 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.060757.20555@adobe.com>, pngai@adobe.com (Phil
Ngai) writes:

|>In article <1992Jul24.042911.18398@dscomsf.desy.de>
|>hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
|>>The Canadians have a competent and well resourced police force to
|>>enforce their gun control laws which have the support of their
|>>population.
|>
|>So you agree gun control isn't going to work any better in the
|>US than it does in Mexico.

Well I don't think that the Reganite service cuts are irreversable you know.

Also re poster pointing out that the Mexican border is well policed. Yep
I'll agree that it might be real hard getting a gun out of Mexico into
the US. The other way round won't be a problem unless the Mexicans
suspect that you are exporting a little of Californias number 1 cash
crop.


|>>A Swiss serviceman is issued with a rifle which he has to keep in his
|>>house. He is also issued with ammo. He is responsible for both. If he is
|>
|>I see. So if the US government gave every male a rifle and a box of
|>ammo, that would solve our problems with violence.

Nope, the point is that every 6 months or so each swiss male has to go
off for target practice. He has to show that he still has his gun in one
piece and that he has not lost his ammo.

I somehow don't think that many contibutors here want to go off to join
the army to play with guns.

|>>Also an assault rifle is not exactly the ideal weapon for knocking off
|>>grocery stores. They are big suckers, difficult to stick under your
|>>jumper.
|>
|>Oh, so assault rifles are not a problem. You should tell the State
|>of California that, they are so scared of them they banned them.
|>They should have asked HALLAM first and he would have told them
|>the true story.

Assault rifles are the weapon of the heavy duty psycho or major league
crook or some jerk playing at being one. There is no practical
difference between an assault rifle and a handgun when it comes to
knocking off 9-11 stores except that the assault rifle is going to be
much harder to hide.

So? I agree that the State of California should not have discriminated
between them, they should have banned the lot.


Phill Hallam-Baker

PS message to Termie, if you want to stay anonymous try disconnecting
finger eh?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: BIG GUNS AND LITTLE REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS...
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:47:28 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.175025.173@lrc.edu>, blosser_cy@lrc.edu writes:
|> Man is inherently wicked and prone to sudden acts of random violence against 
|> his neighbor.

Man is inherently good, and prone to random acts of extreme heroism and beauty.

|>..a puny wimp with a small dick feels macho when he has a steel
|> rod that can spit fire and deal death in his hands.  

An anonymous poster, small dick or no, feels macho when he/she starts a flame war
in a newsgroup that has done him/her no harm.

|> It takes *more* guts to 
|> love your neighbor than 2 pull the trigger and end his life in a splattering
|> of blood and spongy grey matter. 

Do you speak from experience?  How many of your neighbors have you killed?

|> A smoking hole in a shattered skull is *no*
|> way to solve diplomatic problems. 

I don't know - Herr Hitler posed a bit of a problem, and he solved it rather
nicely with "a smoking hole in a shattered skull" - his own.

One counter-example disproves a theory.

|> Most of your gun-owners have no brains and
|> therefore are incapable of settling their differences with another using (of
|> all things!) civilized discussion. 

Well, if that's true, then you've got problems, bunkie, as you just offended
about 20,000 gun owners.

I suggest the fact that you're still alive next week disproves your nasty little
insults.

|> They'd rather blow the opposing fucker a-
|> way and end the matter right then and their. They do love to play Rambo with
|> their big guns. If only their brains were that size. Not to mention genital-
|> reproductive organs. If we all discarded our guns & got rid of all our bombs
|> and disposed of every stupid weapon we own we'd get along *much* better with 
|> each other. 

This is proposed every other generation for the last 4000 years.  Unfortunately
enough, the people who propose it become "raw meat" for the lawless.

Those who see the flaws in your non-logic live to pass on their values to their
children.

Think of it as evolution in action.

|> Perhaps we'd even have peace, love & happiness around the world.

Well, why don't *you* start it by not insulting nice people you don't even know,
you spineless bigot.

|> Besides...flowers are a *lot* nicer than guns. 

I like them both - you should see my rose garden.

|> So get rid of yours today.

The roses?  I'd rather die!

|> Peace!

Survival!

[Incidently, I'm sure we have another case of the "honest, I left it logged on"
syndrome here.]

Followups to alt.flame.

-- 
Kirk Hays - NRA Life.
Start your day with a little civil disobedience.  Call BATF at 1-800-ATF-GUNS or
1-800-RUN-GUNS, tell them what you think of gun grabbers and government employees
that encourage people to narc on their neighbors.  Good for the soul.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: kenk@sdc.com (Ken Konecki)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Systems Development Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:14:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.002750.18791@news.acns.nwu.edu> asbestos@nwu.edu (Michael A. Atkinson) writes:
>I am hardly a revisionist (although I speak only for myself).  I can tell
>you this:  nowhere in the Constitution is the Congress or the Executive
>empowered to infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

What about the power to regulate interstate commerce, maintain the post
office, and power to tax?  All of these things have been used in the past
to restrict the sales of firearms without Supreme Court veto.

>IMNSHO, no government in the US, Federal, State or local, is empowered to
>restrict RKBA.  All waiting periods on and bans of small arms (Pistols,
>rifles, and shotguns) are unConstitutional.

Until 1925, freedom of speech was not protected by the 1st amendment at
anything other than the federal level.  Neither was freedom for religion
until 1940.  It has only been in the last 50 years or so that the Bill of
Rights has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to apply at the state
level and only then by virtue of the 14th amendment (Trivia quiz: there are
still parts of 2 of the first 10 amendments that apply only at the federal
level. What are they?).  In addition, the second amendment was written to
prevent the newly created national government from disarming the state
militias; the states needed reassurance that the new government with its
much stronger powers (as opposed to the weak and ineffective government
that existed under the Articles of Confederation) would not infringe upon
the sovereignty of the states.  It was not intended to provide anything
to private citizens.

This is not to debate whether private citizens should own firearms, but
merely to point out that the rights supposedly granted by the second
amendment were never really there in the first place.

Cheers,
    -Ken K

-- 
Ken Konecki
e-mail:kenk@sdc.com    -or-    ...!uunet!tellab5!sdc!kenk
"I just found out that the brain is like a computer.  If that's true,
then there really aren't any stupid people.  Just people running DOS."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: Mike Tighe <tighe@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Waiting periods
Originator: tighe@convex1.convex.com
Reply-To: tighe@convex.com
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Texas
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 04:17:31 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

>But let's forget the media. What do YOU think of waiting periods?

I think they are stupid and will probably never compromise on them. They
will never work. We already have a "wait forever" waiting period on the
purchase of MJ, cocaine, heroin, etc., and it has only made the situation
worse. 
-- 
Mike Tighe, (214) 497-4206
tighe@convex.com
From: chrisw@hpscit.sc.hp.com (Chris Wiles)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 22:06:03 GMT
Subject: News media & politicians
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara, CA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns


	This is my first post so bear with me.

	With all the media "disinformation" regarding guns
and their functions, ie autos semi-autos etc. Couldn't the
media concieve the idea that a double action revolver be
construed as a semi-auto /automatic, considering that one
pull of the trigger would equal one shot fired? I would like
to get a 100 year old double action revolver and convence the
media it is actually an assault weapon. 

	When the media discusses firearms, its like a butcher
talking about open heart surgery. 

p.s I have seen very few shows that actually do any research into
firearms besides the regular hype and hysteria.

Sarah Brady, Space Nut part 3,  " The rights of the criminals outweigh
the rights of the law abiding citizens, unless you ara a politician, and the
law doesn't apply to them".

chris wiles
right is right and bad laws are wrong.
wq

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: Yanks
Organization: CS&E, Uni of NSW, Australia
	<92Jul20223203@coombs.anu.edu.au> <1992Jul20.180334.526@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:19:29 GMT

>>>>> On 20 Jul 92 18:03:34 GMT, sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) said:
> (Susan McDonald) writes:
>>(The Rifleman) writes:
>>> In article <1992Jul19.192559.10089@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Jul19.042832.17418@athena.mit.edu> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au writes:
>>>>>I see you yanks are still wanking on about your cap pistols.  When
>>>>>will you grow up?  

>>>>Terminator, is that you?  This is NOT a very impressive forgery.

>>> Are you accusing me of forgery?

>>No, he's asking nicely.  Are you going to answer the question?

> Wow!  That was a remarkable forgery job, whoever did this one!  Kudos.

It's ridiculously easy to forge something like that.  (The forger got
the message id wrong, so there:-)

Since the original forgery came from MIT, you are the obvious suspect.
I don't think that you did it, but your unwillingness to deny it is
raising a few doubts in my mind.  Could we have a clear statement,
please?

Tim
From: jdw@unislc.uucp (James Warren)
Subject: Re: "Direct" methods of crime control
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:08:17 GMT

From article <1992Jul29.184750.14146@SSD.intel.com>, by hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays):
> In article <ATAYLOR.92Jul29080532@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
> 
> |> 	Question: which will open the average house door faster, 
> |> 	a lock pick or a pipe wrench?
> 
> A 5 foot long piece of 4x4 beats them both, for the average entry door.

This method has the added advantage in that if the home owner hears the
noise, he will think that it is just the police making one of their
random house checks.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks)
Subject: Re: Docs versus riflemen
Organization: Telecom Research Labs
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 05:10:52 GMT

In article <1992Jul17.105241.9490@ucc.su.OZ.AU> bill@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (William Logan Lee) writes:
>In article <1992Jul13.032532.6409@trl.oz.au> djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:
>> .... Having an armed population does not guarantee
>> the ability to overthrow a government, but it does guarantee violence.
>
>I'm sure that the Swiss people thoroughly agree with you.  There is nothing
>wrong with violence per se, but it should be justifyable. They would be
>prepared to use violence to repel invaders to their country, and there are
>plenty of weapons (even ones you would probably call evil assault weapons)
>available to the population.  Yes, they are an armed population.  Yes they
>would be prepared to use violence.  Do you still think this is such a bad
>thing?  Would you feel safe in their country?  Would you be in constant fear
>of your life as your posting seems to imply? Do you still believe that
>personal fear of your life (or that of your family or friends) is an
>inevitable consequence of an armed population?
>
>Bill Lee

Having been to both the US and Switzerland I must say that I feel much safer
in Switzerland. Both populations (generally) are armed so it's not just the
fact that guns exist in the hands of the population that makes the difference.
The Swiss are armed for the security of their free State and work together
to train a good militia to maintain that community freedom. This is the way
it was intended in the US through the 2nd amendment. 
But the 2nd got extended from a 'security of a free State' to the security
of an individual (Don't tell me the individual IS the state, we'll agree to
disagree). The RIGHT! of the individual to do what he wants and to use his
firearm to back it up. If what the individual wants is out of line with the
majority and the laws then he is called a 'criminal'. 

DJ...

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: The AvtoMat Kalishnakov Model Number 47
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:10:34 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.223649.16692@javelin.sim.es.com> biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:

>archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:

>>In article <1992Jul28.121332.57554@cc.usu.edu> slzm9@cc.usu.edu writes:

>>>   The NRA seeks to keep the AK-47 assault rifle legal to the public.
>>>That is enough for me to know they are misguided. 

>>1) The Avtomat Kalishnakov 47 is not "legal to the public."  The Kalishnakov 
>>is a Class-III fully automatic assault weapon and has not been legal to sell 
>>to private citizens in the United States since 1986, when Ronald Reagan 
>>signed the so-call "Sportsmans Protection Act."  You have been lied to by 
>>Sarah Brady, HCI, and their syncophant's on the Hill.  

>This is all true, but irrelevant, since it is the perception that matters,
>not the facts. The Public demands that These Terrible Weapons be banned,
>because Criminals and Gangmembers will use them on Innocent Folks.

Not quite irrelivant.  I was trying to inform the original poster how far 
from reality he had been manipulated by the media.

>BTW, under the aforementioned Protections Act (love that name!) 
>existing full-auto weapons were grandfathered, which is why yours truly
>has a legal MAC-10 with which to provide an unwelcome surprise to the
>next burglar...  err, disavantaged person trying to improve his/her lot.

I knew about the grandfathering.  I assumed everybody would assume 
grandfathering, as even "eminent domain" (a crock if I ever heard it) 
does not permit confiscation without just compensation.

>>>Noone needs an
>>>automatic weapon with that kind of firepower for self defense. 

>Having previously been the victim of an armed assault, and still carrying 
>eleven lead pellets from that occasion - to the amusement of X-ray 
>operators - I beg to differ. While an automatic weapon may be no more 
>effective in disabling assailants than a semi-automatic weapon, it
>sure tends to spoil their aim, if not downright discourage them.

>Regards,
>       H. Biesel s.N.a.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: uk09365@nx11.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:09:49 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.014557.23458@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>  
dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz) writes:
> And you get more dead wives.  Even the gun controllers acknowledge
> that strict gun control, if it would affect dosmestic violence at
> all, would reduce the number of murderous husbands being justifiably
> killed at the expense of greater wife fatalities.  Like I said
> earlier, in my view the real litmus test for a women's rights
> advocate is opposition to gun control.

Consider the following from a researcher supporting gun-control.

from:  "The Effect of Gun Availability on Violent Crime Patterns."
The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
No. 455 (May 1981): 63-79.  by Philip J. Cook.

"A gun is particularly valuable against victims who are physically
strong, armed, or otherwise relatively invulnerable."

"In 1977, 68.5 percent of male homicide victims were shot, compared
with only 51.0 percent of female homicide victims."

"about 70 percent of victims aged 20-44 are shot, but this fraction
drops off rapidly for younger and older . . . victims."

"First, women tend to use more lethal weapons to kill their
spouses than do men:  97 percent of the women, but only 78%
of the men, used a gun or knife.  The gun fractions in spouse
killings are 67 percent and 62 percent respectively - not
a large difference, but one that is notable, since women typically
have less experience than men in handling guns are are less likely
to think of any guns in the house as their personal property.
It is also true that women who kill their "boyfriends" are more
likely to use a gun than men who kill their "girlfriends."

". . . the highest gun fraction - 87 percent - involves elderly
killers and youthful victims."

Cook claims that all of this indicates that gun availability
should be reduced because (not in his terms of course) guns
allow the weak to prey on the strong.

Now, however, look at Don B. Kates, Jr. "Defensive Gun
Ownership as a Response to Crime." (Feb 1990) 17-36.

". . . around 50 percent of interspousal homicides are
committed by abused wives." (from U.S. Bur. of Just. stats 1984)

and

". . . when we look at _criminal_ violence between spouses,
we find that 91 percent were victimizations of women by their
husbands or ex-husbands." (from 1973-1981 Justice stats.)

"In Detroit, for instance, husbands are killed by wives more
often than vice versa, . . . [but] three-quarters of wives
who killed were not even charged, prosecutors having found
their acts lawful and necessary to preserve their lives
or their children's." (from Daly and Wilson?)

Something to keep in mind.

Robert K.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns