HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu (Brett G. Lemoine)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University - Chemistry Dept. Programmer
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 06:09:00 GMT

In article <l_cnb3#.crisp@netcom.com>, crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) spouts.
}Clinton's platform position and rhetoric where he proposes to remove
}the "assault weapons with no legitimate hunting purpose" combined
}with his plan to put 100,000 new police officers on the street as
}part of a "National Police Force" intended to be used to rub out things
}he personally finds objectionable is the most dangerous combination
}of proposals to come out of the wacko left wing of the DumbOCratic party
}I have heard of in years. 
} 
}This is the perfect setup for Slick Willie to declare himself "President
}for Life" for our own good! Here is the scenario:
} 
}Disarm the public of the weapons mos protected by the Constitution
}(ie the weapons most useful by a militia)
} 
}Put in a goon squad staffed by "ex military personnel displaced by the
}defense cutbacks" (read that as military personnel loyal to their
}Commander In Chief, in short a military backed squad of civil liberty
}ignoring thugs that know how to only do one thing: wage war), and disarm the 
}people and make up some BS crisis like "the war in the inner cities" to 
}"justify" their existence and the attack on the Constitution, and we have
}the beginnings of Bill "President for Life" Clinton. Such a deal!
}It would be cheap at twice the price.....
} 
}It is worth thinking about, you bleeding heart liberals, the time is not
}too late to stop this dangerous, illegal assault on basic human rights.
}-- 
}Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com

Give me a break. This senario is about as likely as you convincing me to
become a fundamentalist Christian. Personally, I'd say that George strikes
me as much closer to the dictator type. Besides, anyone who so blatently
ignores the separation of Church and State in his speeches has lost my
vote.

}-IvArch->--------------------------Brett G. Lemoine-------------------->
}-Texas A&M University--------------Chemistry Department Programmer----->
}-Internet: lemoine@chemvx.tamu.edu-Bitnet: lemoine@tamchem------------->
}------"A person without a god is like a fish without a skateboard."---->
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Guns, and the necessity to trust our governement.
Keywords: guns and surrealism
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 03:24:53 GMT

marcmil@microsoft.com (Marc Milanini) writes:

> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>>	What?  I missed something here.  The most effective means of
>>protecting yourself is a firearm, according to the stats I've read.
>>If you deny "wishing to be prepared to defend myself" as a legal
>>purpose, you've just denied the most effective means available.

>Reread what I wrote. I do not want weapons to be taken away from
>citizens, just controls to be carried out on purchases.

	Those controls allow weapons to be taken away from citizens.
What you want isn't guarenteed under the rules you like, just as
laws against gansterism hasn't guarenteed no gangsters.  You are
totally screwed if you suspect a law will be obeyed by all, and
that includes both police chiefs and gangsters.  So why enact it
if it won't hinder what you wish to stop, and will hinder what
you wish to see continue?

>>	I, for one, do mind controls over legal purchases.  If they
>>are legal, what's the need for controls?  If all you are after is
>>keeping arms from gangsters, you've already lost that battle by
>>default, as gangsters don't seem to give a whit about the law.

>I have never said that controls on legal purchases would prevent
>gangsters from getting weapons. One thing is for sure, remove any
>control, and you will find more weapons in their hands. The harscher
>the control, the less weapons they will have.

	If guns don't make one a ganster, your analogy is flawed, and
for proof one need only look at how people under the age of 18 seem to
be able to aquire arms, and that has been illegal for years.

>According to your logic, we don't need no stinkin' drivin' licences.
>Hey, look, I can drive, I don't need one. What is the point in
>controlling me, as long as I don't cause any accident ?

	What point indeed?  I don't see one myself in your case.  That
your case may be quite the minority is another matter.  I note that it
was not necessary to have a drivin' license in the USA in many states
until just a few decades ago, and that it is still not required for
certain purposes in many states.  Very few accidents are reported
as being caused by 12-year olds driving heavy machinery, or 14-year
olds in actual semi-tractor rigs.  I drove both, without a license.
That some kid in New York hot-wires a car and crashes into a
telephone pole or even another car need not be proof that my
driving be restricted.  When we extend this to rights, the lack of
need and justification is even more apparent.

<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
From: bobd@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula)
Subject: Re: New York Times article
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 12:37:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.160449.13057@rti.rti.org> jbs@rti.rti.org writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.192410.17444@engage.pko.dec.com> stanley@yngstr.enet.dec.com writes:
>>
>>Assault Weapons Aren't the Problem  by Gary Kleck
>>
>>A better strategy would be to enact laws that keep firearms - whether assault
>>weapons or regular guns - out of the hand of criminals through the use of
>>mandatory computerized background checks of all would-be gun buyers.
>
>Yup, that'll shut down the black market. Brilliant solution, Kleckie.
>

Ummm, I hate to be the one to point this out, but this is basically
what the NRA advocated by pushing the Staggers Amendment (Bill?)
which advocated an instant background check.
Whether you agree with the NRA in this instance or not is another story.
Some might theorize that this was a major policy giveaway by the NRA and
might have weakened the pro-RKBA position....

I for one am rather happier to see the Neal Knox faction gaining control
of the NRA as they seem to be more nearly opposed to the
"compromise a lot to gain a little breathing room" approach favored by
the previous NRA moguls (Cassidy & Co.). (This is my impression 
anyway from what I've read).
-- 
==========================================================================
              Disclaimer: These are my views, not the U's

        "If it's in the paper it must be true!" --- D. Doright 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Date: 25 Aug 1992 20:38:52 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zabriskie.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug25.192435.10357@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:

> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
> >
> > > [ assertion that enviromental spending depends on hunters ]
> >
> > A specious argument.  The same amount of money could be spent on
> > the environment regardless of policies on hunting.
>
>The key word here is *could*.  The fact is that we have a long term
>study that indicates it won't be spent unless it comes from hunters
>(i.e. the history of hunting licenses), who insist it be spent that way.

Bullshit.  Hunting license fees constitute a teeny fraction of
the money spent on the environment.  Are you trying to tell me
the budgets for EPA, Interior, and Agriculture are primarily
funded by hunting license fees?  I don't have the numbers in front
of me but I'm certain this is way off base.

What exactly are the conclusions of this "long term study" ??
If you define "environmental spending" in an extremely narrow sense
I suppose it might match the amount of license fee revenue.
Again, I regard this assertion as meaningless.

Steve
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:41:46 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>Steve Pope writes:
>>
>>However only a fraction of this excise tax is on firearms and ammo 
>>that are used for hunting specifically -- does your 80% number above 
>>take this into account? What fraction of firearm/ammo usage can be 
>>attributed to hunters?  Where I live (Alameda County, CA) I imagine 
>>it's pretty damned low.  Probably half the ammo sold this year was 
>>simply as a reaction to the King riots...
>
>Honestly, Steve, I really don't know what percentage of the excise tax
>money comes from hunters.  Nor does anyone else.

Nor is it particularly important.

Look, we all agree that hunting taxes plus firearms-related taxes
provide a huge portion of the budget for worthwhile conservation
efforts in this country.  Why do conservation causes get all the
firearms-related money?  Why doesn't Congress allocate that money
for education, or national debt payments, or foreign aid?

The sole reason that the firearms-related money is dedicated to
conservation causes is hunting.  If the hunters of this nation were
to abandon their commitment to conservation causes, the excise money
collected for firearms/ammo sales would likely be allocated elsewhere
by the Congress.

Not all of those guns/ammo are purchased by hunters, true.  But without
the hunters, conservation causes would see little of those funds.

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Free NRA memberships
Date: 31 Aug 92 11:15:59 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.

In article <5289@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> dcwst8+@pitt.edu (David C Winters) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.220518.22117@SSD.intel.com> hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
>>[Well, now that Bart Simpson is an NRA member...]
>
>Ummm...right.  Did I miss something unimportant?
>

A recent Simpson's episode had a family member giving Bart a junior
NRA membership, with appropriate 'liberal' comments concerning
full-auto and "Teflon Bullets."

The real joke is that my friend in NRA membership is attempting to get
cleared with upper management the issue of an actual membership for
Bart, to be sent to Matt Groenig with the appropriate literature.

>--
>I hate my .sig...


Try this one, then.

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.
From: "nigel allen" <nigel.allen@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: brady bill
Date: 2 Sep 92 05:41:58 EST
Reply-To: "nigel allen" <nigel.allen@canrem.com>
Distribution: talk
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

Here is a press release from Handgun Control Inc.

 As U.S. Sets New Homicide Record, Bradys Joined by Hundreds of
Leaders in Launching Nationwide Campaign to "Free the Brady Bill"
 To: National Desk
 Contact: Gwen Fitzgerald of Handgun Control Inc., 202-898-0792

   WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 /U.S. Newswire/ -- From coast to coast today,
hundreds of police officers, teachers, mayors, doctors, ministers,
civil rights leaders, and victims of gun violence launched an
unprecedented drive to pressure the U.S. Senate to separate the Brady
handgun waiting period language from the omnibus crime bill and send
it to President Bush immediately.
   "Politicians had better wake up to the fact that the American
people are disgusted with the inaction in Washington, and will show
it at the polls in November," said James Brady, who joined New York
City Mayor David Dinkins, Acting Police Commissioner Kelly and U.S.
House Crime Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), and
a host of others at a news conference in New York.  "Holding the
Brady Bill hostage to partisan bickering when more than 24,000
Americans were murdered last year is inexcusable.  This measure is
desperately needed and the people want action now!"
   Sarah Brady was joined in Atlanta by Mrs. Coretta Scott King,
Police Chief Eldrin Bell, and civil rights activists.  "The problem
in the U.S. Senate is that some lawmakers are holding the Brady Bill
hostage to the crime bill simply to gain a political advantage in an
election year," said Brady.  "There is widespread support from the
people and in Congress for the Brady Bill.  The U.S. Senate can't
use the crime bill as a political scapegoat while people continue to
die on our nation's streets."
   Newly released FBI data shows that 1991 set a new homicide record
-- up 4 percent from 1990.  Most were committed with guns.  In fact,
handgun homicide increased 14 percent from 1990 to 1991.
   Events were also held today in Houston, Chicago, Kansas City,
Kan., Los Angeles, Spokane, Wash., Charleston, S.C., Boston,
Lewiston, Maine, Albuquerque, and San Diego.  The campaign will
continue with events across the country throughout September.
   The Brady Bill passed the House and Senate last summer, but has
been gridlocked in the Senate as part of the crime bill since last
November.
 -30-
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.culture.french
From: marcmil@microsoft.com (Marc Milanini)
Subject: Re: Guns, and the necessity to trust our governement.
Date: 01 Sep 92 03:10:22 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

Here we go for another round. Sorry folks, but hard as I try, I can't help
reply this one.

In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug28092946@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>
>   In article <1992Aug23.010331.15464@microsoft.com>, marcmil@microsoft.com
>   (Marc Milanini) writes:
>
>   > Whereas in the USA, you can buy M16s by reading ads in the newspapers.
>
>	Not without committing a Federal Felony good for 10 years
>	in prison and a $10,000 fine.
>
>	You want to LEGALLY buy an M16? Fine. Get your local
>	police chief to approve the sale IN WRITING, send that
>	and your fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
>	and Firearms along with a $200 tax and wait until you
>	have passed the FBI background check.
>
>	Oh, and make sure that you live in a State which allows
>	private ownership of such firearms; Washington state,
>	for example, PROHIBITS private ownership of Class III
>	(full auto) firearms to civilians absolutely.

Mr Nosy, I saw an ad for a M16 in a Alaskan newspaper. Maybe this is
a felony if I decide to buy it without going through all the process 
that you describe, but the fact is: I can buy it if I want to.

>	Is Microsoft still in Washington State?

At this point, it is a little bit shifting towards Canada, but with
such a small velocity that the answer to your question is yes.

>   > We agree that European countries have less criminality than the USA.
>
>	We agree that they have less REPORTED criminality.
>	Quickly now, what is the armed robbery rate for, oh, France?

You can always find areas where the USA performs better. Another fact is
that there are 400,000 prisoners in the USA, and only 60,000 in France,
a country only 4 1/2 times smaller.

>	Do you know? Can you find out?

Yes. Yes. Will I find out ? No. Because we already know that France
has more armed robberies than the USA.

>   > As a matter of fact, thay also have harscher control on guns...
>
>	False. French firearms laws are LESS restrictive than
>	the laws of New York City, Washington DC to name but
>	two US sites. Swiss law is less generally restrictive than

Let me see, two sites at random: N.Y.C and Washington DC. Of course,
those two cities have very harsh control on guns. But they are not
the whole USA, are they ? In France, you cannot have an automatic
weapon at all. As for Switzerland, the fact that each male citizen
is required to serve in the Army and to have a weapon in his closet
does not make her a all-gun country.

>	the law of Kalifornia.

Kalifornia is not the whole USA yet.

-- 
=---K8>>@@@@@@@@ Marc Milanini @@@@ marcmil@microsoft.com @@@@%%
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: robs@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert Sipe)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: BATF Billboard
Date: 1 Sep 92 23:56:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Boeing

>on top of a Colt M1911A1 on the left. On the right:
>
>		GANGS, GUNS,
>		  DRUGS...
>		
>	HAD ENOUGH?
>	
>	call 1-800-ATF-GUNS



I called the 800 number and got a voice mail message who answered as
Jack.  What is this number?  Has anyone called it?  Is it a snitch
line or what?







-- 
For those of you who wish to send a clear message to Time-Warner for
promoting Ice-T's Cop Killer song, write to: Geral M Levin, CEO 
                                             75 Rockefeller Plaza
                                             New York, NY 10019 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:20411 alt.society.civil-disob:92
From: sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.society.civil-disob
Subject: Re: Black Market guns
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:33:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering

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.
>
>	Ammunition that can be fired in a pistol, when sold, must be
>recorded along with the buyers name, ssn, address, and the like.

Here in Madison, Wisconsin, it is illegal to sell handguns or handgun
ammunition within the city limits.  However, since nearly all handgun
ammunition can be shot in carbines, etc. I can still go to K-Mart and
buy 9mm, .45, and the like.  


sean rutledge                              murphy was an optimist!!!
sean@cae.wisc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 3
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:39:16 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne) /  1:25 pm  Aug 26, 1992 /

I wrote:

>> No, they looked on the suspect as likely to try to kill them or hold the
>> children hostage.  The fact that you think a desperate person won't hold
>> their own children hostage or even kill them shows you don't really
>> understand the criminal mind.  No, that's too strong.  I don't
>> understand it either, but I do have a pretty good idea, based on past
>> experience, of how far some of these people will go.

Rob wrote:

>Then why a no-knock raid?  This is guaranteed to endanger the children
>and other innocents more than a criminal who _might_ take his wife and
>children hostage.

The theoretical answer here is simple.  Separate the suspect from the 
innocents before he has time to know what is going on.

>How many criminals have killed their wife and children in a bid to
>avoid arrest?  I'd bet it's less than the number of innocents killed in
>no-knocks.

Maybe.  There is a similar situation going on in Idaho, I think it is.  So 
far the 'slow' approach has killed one federal marshal and one 13 year old 
boy.  We're at 8 days and counting in the standoff.  The guy still
has at least one more kid and wife hostage.  Don't see much improvement here.

Rick.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: Minh Lang <minh@inst-sun1.jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 2 (was Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
X-Xxdate: Thu, 27 Aug 92 15:40:53 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:42:17 GMT

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. 

  == Minh ==
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns