HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: Bill to repeal Second Amendment
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
	<1992Aug12.215850.17207@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:39:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.215850.17207@athena.mit.edu>
sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:

   Of course, you realize, a simple _Bill_ cannot repeal the Second
   Amendment, since the Second Amendment is part of the Constitution.
   The Consitutional Amendment process would have to followed.

The bill is the first step in that process.  It must pass by a
two-thirds majority of both houses.  It is then transmitted to the
state legislatures, three-fourths of which must pass it.

There is no distinction between a normal bill and a bill that starts
the constitutional amendment process.

This is not just a gesture.  It is serious (I know the Rifleman was
not contesting that; I am simply re-asserting the gravity of the
situation).

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
From: vossron@Apple.COM (Ronald N. Voss)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Keywords: n
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:34:00 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>While Voss is correct in suggesting that partial solutions are
>sometimes justified, that doesn't imply that gun laws are justified.

It might imply that partial gun laws are sometimes justified.

>Take the UK and Canada experience.  Gun control's introduction was not
>associated with a beneficial change in their crime rates, so we don't

What does it have to do with crime rates?  It would have to do with
rates of fatalities/injuries for the guns affected by a given law.
Overall crime rates *might* be affected by such a law, but are
*certainly* affected by other factors not related to guns.

-- 
Ron Voss          Apple Computer         I speak only for myself.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth)
Subject: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 23:25:29 GMT

In <1992Aug17.182411.18843@ttinews.tti.com> reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland) writes:

>In article <cthong.713669756@sfu.ca> cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes:


>>the cops meanwhile are only a 20 second phone call away.

>Unless the crook in your house has disabled the phone.  A burglar who
>knows ANYTHING will do this right away.  And even if you do succeed
>in calling the police, how long do they take to get there?  Who
>protects you in the meantime?

Average police response time in Vancouver B.C to a priority one call
is 8 minutes 45 seconds. Burnaby, which is adjacent to Vancouver and
is where Christopher is posting from,
is served by the RCMP, and they have about 1 officer for 800 or so
people. Vancouver has 1 officer for about 400 people.

Does Christopher know how few RCMP officers are patrolling
Burnaby right now? Hint, its less than you think.

Tami Pasic (sp?) was a young single mother who was receiving a
series of death threats from family members of her ex-husband.
She had a restraining order against her ex-husband, had hired a well
known private investigator to watch her child, and there
was an RCMP detective assigned to her case. 

About a week and a half ago, she left her job, and got into
her car to drive home. Another car pulled up beside her, and
Tami was shot to death. This occured on the border between
Burnaby and Coquitlam, both served by the RCMP. While the
RCMP are a very professional force, they are not omni-present.
The RCMP is not saying much about this case, but they did
all they could realistically do.


-- 
Greg Booth BSc                        | Diligentia-Vis-Celeritas
BCAA-PCDHF-BCWF-NFA-NRA-IPSC-BCFSS    |  	Incolumitas
Motorola Mobile Data Division         | 
booth@mdd.comm.mot.com cgb003@email.comm.mot.com
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Carrying while hiking
Date: 20 Aug 1992 00:07:35 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: lightning.berkeley.edu

In article <8110278@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> ron@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ron Miller) writes:
>BTW, the "mountain lions are afraid of people" line of a few years ago
>is being modified by Wildlife departments everywhere. 

A friend of mine, who "works in the field" (e.g. of field biology)
once told me that this was _very_ dependent on the animal's previous
contact with humans. If it's experience with people has been "typical",
it will avoid them. In other cases, however, the mountian lion's 
reactions would be very hard to predict...

				       Frank Crary
				       CU Boulder
				       (even though I'm
				       still using my
				       Berkeley account...)

Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:19561 talk.politics.animals:7247
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:57:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1992Aug18.140920.18625@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:
>
>|Note that the "New Gun Week" article talks first about some
>|clearly illegal actions (arson), then sort of blends into a
>|discussion of this 800 number business with an attempt
>|to lull the reader into thinking that this, too, is illegal.
>|Which of course it isn't.
>
>However, I do recall an individual with a computerized dialer who
>used this tactic against Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority." Not only
>was he told to cease and desist, he was ordered to pay $10s of thousands
>of dollars to the "Moral Majorty."
>

Are you SURE about this? I remember reading the a court had decided that
if you publish an 800 number, you are inviting people to phone you, period.
And that the Moral Majority lost their case. Perhaps one court ruled one
way, and a higher court ruler the other way, and we each heard only one
ruling. Anyone know the facts?

Paul
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Policing Ourselves
Date: 23 Aug 92 08:31:45 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <18AUG199212372337@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> spzkny@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES ZAKANY) writes:
>comes the responsibility to "shoot safe".  A licensing program for firearms 
>is not a bad thing - but please, don't leave it up to the government!

A licensing program for firearms is not a bad thing, it's a horrible
thing. Guns aren't a problem, people who misuse guns are a problem. 
Licensing, registering, or otherwise controlling guns is a dead end 
that accomplishes nothing. Certifying people to purchase weapons,
any weapon, is a step in the right direction, but it has inherent
problems as well. A list of certificate holders is potentially a
confiscation list, and it has little impact on criminal purchases
of weapons since criminals generally don't purchase over the counter.

If we must have regulation, and regulation only affects people who
respect the law to begin with, then we need a system that can't be
used to create a list of firearms owners, or at least the list should
be useless. One way to do that is to mark every citizen's identity
papers with either firearms elegible, or firearms inelegible, whether
they want to purchase a weapon or not. The only reasons for marking
a citizen's papers firearms inelegible is a felony criminal record
for violence, or proven mental incompetency. This system answers
the cries for government action to prevent criminals and crazies
from purchasing guns at Kmart, not that they do anyway, and it
creates a list that is useless for later confiscation.

If you want a firearms safety program, a good idea, offer it in
schools and as private classes as an *optional* course. Convince
the firearms manufacturers to give a *discount* to people who
complete the course, just as insurance companies do for people
who have completed a driver's education course. But, don't let
anyone keep a list of graduates, make them show their certificate
for the discount.

As an aside, identity papers? Yes the US has them de facto even
though they are illegal de jure. The magic number that appears
on IRS forms, driver's licenses, and other papers is your Social
Security number. The IRS requires you to give it to your bank and
your broker. Federal regulations now require it of school children.
The State uses it on your driver's license, etc. Once the government
has your number, they can learn nearly everything about you and
track you wherever you go. It says in the Social Security law that
your number can't be used for identification purposes, but the law
is ignored. The phone company even wants to use it as your permanent
telephone number.

Remember, you can fool the FBI, the CIA, and even the IRS, but the
phone police will get you in the end. :-)

Gary
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dadams@cray.com (David Adams)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Reply-To: dadams@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:50:55 CDT

 Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> () writes:
|andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:
|
|>Suppose that Bush decides to keep the job after Clinton won.  What
|>then "liberals"?  (We've already established that you won't disagree
|>with the assertion that Bush is the anti-Christ, so you don't get to
|>argue for his essential goodness now.)  The ballot box failed and Bush
|>has the Army.  Are you going to hold a rally?  Are you going to build
|>a paper mache Statue of Liberty?  Are you going to set up a burial
|>squad and lie in neat rows so that the tanks can roll over you without
|>wasting gas?
|
|....And I suppose all you conservatives will point your legally obtained
|firearms at the tanks, fire them, watch the bullets bounce off, and then
|be squished yourselves?
|
|If you really take this "we have to be ready to fight off a military
|takeover" argument seriously you have to argue for private posession of
|everything up to and including fully armed jet fighters. Are you?

It has already been pointed out that a small force of guerilla type snipers
can do quite a bit of dammage and resist a vastly superior force.  Consider
Afganistan, Vietnam, Nicaragua etc.

It has been mentioned that tank traps are not hard to construct.  By hiding 
out in in-accessible places you will force the oponent to come after you
without their big machinery.  By sharp-shooting you can pick off guards
in important locations.  You can move to a new location and reload before
being discovered.  

You could hide out in moutain passes.  No tank can follow you there.  You 
can take cover from air-craft in caves.  You can keep an enemy at bay until 
you are able to smuggle anti air-craft missles.  Until you capture 
abandoned tanks (or tanks that get stuck) on the field of battle.

If you can organize a resistance, there will be defectors from the armed forces.
They will bring big weapons.  Organized resistance would be futile without
the right to bear arms.




|
|[Your blood pressure just went up.]       Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
|       DISCLAIMER: If it ain't money, Penn State doesn't care about it.
|   "Ladies and gentlemen, I've suffered for my music! Now it's your turn!"



---
--David C. Adams  Statistician  Cray Research Inc.  dadams@cray.com
___________________________________________________________________
       member--Minnesotans for Global Warming.

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: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 03:34:43 GMT

marcmil@microsoft.com (Marc Milanini) writes:

>>No, I am not a god.  However, I do have a right to protect my life against
>>those who would murder me unlawfully, and along with my right to life comes
>>the right to the most effective means of protecting myself.

>Sure you have this right. In France too, the right to self-defence is
>guaranteed. If someone assaults you to kill you, and if you happen to
>have a weapon, you have the right to defend yourself.

	Sounds good so far.  What's the catch?

>However, the most effective means of protecting yourself does not
>imply the right to buy weapons freely. If you want to get an arm 
>for legal purposes, you should not mind a control on this purchase.
>If you allow honest citizens to buy any weapon they want, you also
>allow gangsters to do the same.

	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.

	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.

<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: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Suicides, injuries, and Vigilantees.
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 16:32:08 GMT

In article <4400223@iftccu.boeing.com> bressler@iftccu.boeing.com
(Rick Bressler) writes:
>>Hm.  Interesting thought:  anyone here read "Final Exit?"  Does it
>>discuss with-gun suicide?  Does it recommend it, or recommend against it?
>
>I haven't read it, so I can't say.  I have been told however that it 
>does recommend a plastic bag and a rubber band.  Relatively quick, 
>painless and foolproof.  Those who want to ban suicide had better 
>plan on a bare rubber room for each of us....  Even that won't stop 
>someone who is REALLY determined.

Huh?  It says that death by asphyxiation is painless?  I've heard that
it's an INCREDIBLY painful way to go...

    don
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Clinton and Suicides, injuries, and Vigilantees.
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:52:23 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) /  3:32 pm  Aug 19, 1992 /

>Hm.  Interesting thought:  anyone here read "Final Exit?"  Does it
>discuss with-gun suicide?  Does it recommend it, or recommend against it?

I haven't read it, so I can't say.  I have been told however that it 
does recommend a plastic bag and a rubber band.  Relatively quick, 
painless and foolproof.  Those who want to ban suicide had better 
plan on a bare rubber room for each of us....  Even that won't stop 
someone who is REALLY determined.

Rick.
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Jacklighting (was PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act...)
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:09:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

jsemrad@ems.cdc.com writes:
>Robert J Unglenieks writes:
>|> 
>|>  is jacklighting an ethical hunting practice?
>|> 
>
>Shining is not only unethical but very illegal, at least around here.  I
>believe you can be arrested just for shining a light across a field at night
>whether or not you have a weapon in you posession (unless you are the 
>landowner, then you can use a light for purposes other than locating deer.
>You still get in trouble if you have a weapon though.)
>
>There are certain rare exceptions, such as DNR baiting and shooting in areas
>where hunting cannot be used to trim populations, and perhaps on some
>Indian reservations (I think they get to set a lot of their own hunting and
>fishing rules and procedures - I don't know if shining is legal for them.)
>Joe

In the state of New Mexico, there is a move by various gun clubs to repeal
anti-jacklighting legislation because it's "unconstitutional".  Shouldn't
the ethical part of the hunting world stand up and tell them they're wrong?

In Vermont a bill was passed that would allow jacklighting of certain species. 
Should hunters be bound to have this overturned?  In this same state, it is
also now legal to kill a moose who "damages" property.  How do you prove it?
Isn't this now a green light for unregulated moose hunting?  A bill to outlaw
shooting fish was also voted down.  Hmmmm.....

Rob U, are pigeon shoots cruel?  
--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
-      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
-                           -  Albert Einstein                             -
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Reading Brady
Date: 21 Aug 1992 16:21:06 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: lightning.berkeley.edu

In article <5770@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>I heard the claim that the clock doesn't start ticking on the waiting
>period until the chief acknowledges receipt of the request.  I don't
>see that ANYWHERE.

I don't have the text in front of me, but as I recall (this was alos
in the most recent version of the bill)...

>(1) A dealer may not sell a handgun unless one of the following is true:
>...
>	If the chief doesn't respond, the waiting period still stops 
>	after seven days and the dealer can deliver.  (If the chief
>	finds out the buyer is a Bad Guy, see 4.)

This clause specifies the seven day period as starting when the police
receive the paperwork. I _think_ there is something about the dealer
being notified by the police of this, before he starts to clock on the 
waiting period.

>(2) If the chief doesn't want to do anything, he doesn't have to.
>    (But the clock STILL ticks despite his inaction.)

The copy I saw didn't mention the waiting period at this point, it
simply said something like, "Nothing in this law shall be construed
to require police departments to take any action." (Which would include
accepting the paperwork on a sale.)

                                                Frank Crary
						CU Boulder
						(even though I'm
						still using my
						Berkeley account...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 23:05:29 GMT

In article <cthong.714253394@sfu.ca>, cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong)
writes:

> veal@utkux1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
> 
> >     What my neighbors think is not the point.  Whether it be free speech,
> >religion, or the right to keep and bear arms, my rights are not theirs to
> >vote on or give away.

> like i said david ... you don't care what your neighbours think do you.
> you don't care about them do you? why is it that laws are always seen as
> a negative when another way of looking at them is to figure that without
> them we would all be a nation of REACT-ors rather than people who ACT before
> an unfortunate event?

Hey, guys, why not just go ahead an enact laws for no apparent reason?
Why bother understanding the problem to see if the law will be effective?
Hey, let's lock Chris up before he commits a crime.  Let's ACT on this,
not REACT to his crime.  Hell, why don't we just shoot EVERYBODY, then
they won't ever commit any crimes!...

Chris, what you are suggesting is known as prior restraint.  It's forbidden
since people are assume innocent until proven guilty.  Application of prior
restraint is presumed guilt.  Once you set the precedent, I can apply this
to virtually anything.

> apologies do very little to make up when it comes to 
> the victims. you have your opinions . but your opinions must also be tempered
> with a sense of responsibility and a realisation that like it or not , rights
> or not , you are bound by ties of mutual responsibility to your fellow 
> neighbour and any decision that has an adverse effect on them should be seriouslyy thought through and POSSIBLY altered or changed . rights guarantee you a greatt deal of liberty and power but from what i've seen and heard , americans have
> yet to realise that they are responsible for seeing that their rights do not 
> adversely affect the majority . 

The majority is irrelevant, if the individual has no rights.  What good
are "collective rights", if no individual may use them?  You will create
a catch-22.  Your group has the collective right to speak, but groups
cannot speak, only individuals within the group can do that.

Additionally, you have failed to show how the laws that you propose will
prevent crime.  You have suggested that Singapore is safer with a ban on
firearms, but did not say if the crime rate went down with the firearm ban
(this means we need before and after statistics).  I would be interested in
these statistics, since no one has shown any other country where firearm bans
have had this effect.

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:19:05 GMT

In article <viking.714190353@vincent1.iastate.edu>, viking@iastate.edu
(Dan Sorenson) writes:

> 	The details of the situation are not known to us, and I am
> highly torqued that no trial or review will be held to make the
> facts known.

This is my main gripe, too...

> 	Could you elaborate on this?  I assume a clear and present
> danger is already given if the occupants are known to be killers, or
> to have exchanged fire with police forces.

But to be "known killers", the officer would have had to have witnessed
the shooting (and identified the "perp"), or the person has already
been convicted (and been identified by mug shots).  All others are
still _suspects_.

> In such an instance, I
> cannot fault an officer who enters with weapon ready.

Agreed.  Arresting a suspected murderer is grounds for caution...

> I can fault the
> officer if he just starts shooting people without regard to the threat
> they might pose (unarmed, asleep, whatever), but who can fault a person
> for being ready for a situation that might not ever happen?

Correct.  But still, when raiding a house with children (or any other
non-combatants) in it, I would expect more caution.  What reaction would
you expect from a mother if a bunch of "hoods" crash through her door?
Did she know who was breaking in?... Could she have construed people
crashing through her door as a danger to her children?  It would seem
like a SWAT member would be trained to understand that non-combatants
don't always react in what they consider a "logical manner".

I think the application of the raid was reckless, and improper.

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns