HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
Subject: Back to Ambling them thar Preambles...
Date: 27 Jul 92 08:27:53 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

asbestos@nwu.edu (Michael A. Atkinson) writes:
] kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
] 
] <Snip>
] 
] <Snip>

As one of the Folks here who has made his living
being able to use a shooting iron, and one of
the few here who has been a card carrying member
of a pistol club in the UK, I must add as how y'all
are MOST amusing.

1. One of the mainstays of ANY 'militia' happens to
be the ability to put the round Down Range, and ON TARGET.

2. for those folks who have ever stood around a pistol
range wishing that they made neat T-Shirts with 'shooters excuses'
on them for those days one could not hit a BroadSide With a Barn...
I think you can appreciate the amount of time that goes into
training, and that merely standing pleasantly at the range 
capping off rounds.

{ the wind shifted, There were solar Flares, I got the moon in
my eye. I could have sworn the target shifted. There is a spec
of dust on the foresight. I hear the Call of the Wild. The bullet
heard the Call of The Wild. Obviously its proof of divine intervention. }

3. If I does also remember a part of the 'reasoning' behind 
the 2nd amendment, I does believe it was moderately influenced
by the fact that the previous central government had not been
all that willing to engage in a serious discussion of the rights
of the common man. And that it was, by force of arms, by persons
who were NOT REGULAR TROOPS, that they were able to persuade the
then Central Government to GET THEIR LAWS OFF OUR BODIES!!!!
{ anyone on for discussing the nature of american military forces
at that times, do feel free to read up on what lafayette thought of them... }

4. that having been said, perchance the pleasant thought
of an armed populus might once again positively influence the
central government to seriously consider GETTING THEIR LAWS OFF OUR BODIES!!!

Don't get me wrong, I prefer a well organized militia, and
I do prefer a secure logistic tail to said organization. BUT,
when the matter is one of dealing with the Armed Force of the State...
I think that better anyone who can shoot, than anyone who is on
the pay of the State.

Now that we have cleared up that minor matter...

ciao
drieux




-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Virginia Firearms Investigative Unit
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:08:44 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <archer.131@utkux1.utk.edu>, archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
> In article <5054@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
> 
> >But now people admit that the existing law is either not being enforced 
> >or is unenforceable.  If the latter, then maybe another law IS the answer.
> 
> That doesn't follow.  If one law doesn't work or is not enforced, why would 
> another one be any different?

If the existing law is unenforceable, it's still possible that a different
law based on a different criterion and with much the same result might be
enforceable.  Certainly enough "bad laws" have been replaced with better 
laws for practical or constitutional reasons.  The alternative is to argue
that no law is enforceable.
-- 

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: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Ban the Killer of 300,000
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:44:32 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.041125.16249@trl.oz.au> djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:

>In article <1992Jul16.205709.10363@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>
>>There are very few good reasons to shoot to kill, and none come up in
>>civilian use.  (Maybe there are some in judicial or military use, but
>>that's not relevant in this discussion.)  There are plenty of good
>>reasons to use potentially deadly force to STOP someone.  Stopping
>>them may well result in their death, but that wasn't the purpose,
>>stopping them was.
>>
>>Think about the differences between shoot to kill and shoot to stop
>>and why they're relevant.
>>

>Agreed, but how many of the MILLIONS of gun owners in the US have the training
>to know the difference and the skill to stop without killing in a wide 
>variety of situations with any or all of their weapons. Not many I guess.

>DJ...

You miss the point.  Any attempt to "stop without killing" is not 
recommended.  It takes too much skill, and luck is too much of a factor.  If 
one needs to use potential deadly force, one shoots to stop.  If the perp 
survives, lucky him.  If he dies, I won't shed any tears.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Air Weapons and the Olympics
Date: 30 Jul 1992 20:03:20 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

Heard on the radio this morning:

	American shooter Loni Miele* won a gold in
	(?) standard rifle competition.

It wasn't clear if they were talking about air rifle
or smallbore, but it was nice to hear.  The next-highest
American in the event placed 12th, btw.

	seh

* The probable misspelling of the name is a combination
  of the tortured pronounciation of the radio announcer
  and my tattered memory of an article about Loni in
  a recent issue of some shooting magazine...but which
  one I can't remember.  Perhaps American Airgunner.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: uk09365@nx06.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:21:22 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.174729.1496@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don  
Baldwin) writes:
> The Second Amendment has been reviewed by linguistics experts, who have
> decided that it DOES give ordinary people the right to keep/bear arms;
> that the militia clause provides one reason why that right is important.
> 
>    don

	To be fair, the Second Amendment has also been reviewed
	by at least one Journalism professor (admittedly not
	at all the same thing as a linguist) who has written
	that it does NOT protect an individual RTKABA from
	infringement.

(I personally disagree with this assessment, but it is
 a published alternative.)

	I could also point out that since Levinson's 
	"Embarassing Second Amendment" came out in 1989
	there have been several other legal scholars
	who have written journal articles rejecting the
	individual RTKABA thesis and restating the
	collective rights justification.

Robert K.

p.s. After scanning the legal journal index (info/legaltrac)
for about an hour and a half (waiting for a friend who never
showed up) yesterday; I am thinking that we (pro-RKBA) need
to be as or more worried about the legal elites than the
medical elites.  With the well-known exceptions (Kates,
Halbrook, Hardy, Caplan, etc.) the sentiment appears to be
overwhelmingly anti-gun.  Many of the articles appear to
express far reaching prohibitionist designs.  The medical elites
who claim (at least publicly) to support (only) competency
and licensing of gun owners seem "tame" compared to what the
attitude of a number of the lawyers appears to be.  This is
especially disturbing as the lawyers tend to have more direct
access to the legislative process.
From: wolfgang@wsrcc.com (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Drugs and Crime (Was Virginia Firearms Investigative Unit)
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:22:14 GMT
Organization: W S Rupprecht Computer Consulting, Fremont CA

jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
>>>4) In fact, we should just let them buy directly.
>>>I can't believe I'm hearing this.
>>So what do you propose be done, if anything, about the putative "problem"?
>The root cause of the violence problem in DC could easily be eliminated.
>Assuming police propaganda is believed, most violence involves drug traffic.

This assumes that drug trafficking/violence is the problem and not the
symptom of a different problem, say, like poverty.

A report in the San Jose Mercury News (during the time of Adobe's
Presidents kidnapping) stated that kidnapping had been virtually
unheard of in the last decade or two.  The reason?  There are much
easier and safer ways to make money in the drug trade.

>Easy as one congressional bill and one stroke of the Bushwhacker's pen.

While that would no doubt solve some problems, the nasty violent
people that ply one trade aren't all going to disappear with the
stroke of that one pen.  What is to prevent them from moving on to a
new line of business, perhaps one in a better part of town?

-wolfgang
-- 
Wolfgang Rupprecht    wolfgang@wsrcc.com (or) wsrcc!wolfgang
Snail Mail:           39469 Gallaudet Drive, Fremont, CA 94538-4511
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: citizens against military ( was Re: A Proposed FAQ For This Newsgroup )
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:48:02 GMT

In <3304@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> dcwst8+@pitt.edu (David C Winters) writes:

>In article <1992Jul16.200448.22892@ttinews.tti.com> hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:
>>
>>The colonists and the British were pretty much comparably armed.  Apart
>>from a few canon, it was flintlock muzzle-loaders and sharp pointy things
>>all around.  Further, the colonists had the resources of an unexploited
>>continent at their backs, so they couldn't be starved out.

>Well, you're forgetting the fact that, for a while, the colonists _did_
>enjoy a technological advantage, in the superior accuracy, ballistics,
>and range of the Pennsylvania rifle, which used a rifled barrel.  {{ I
>_know_ that the world-at-large knows them as "Kentucky" rifles, but the
>damn things were first made by German settlers in Pennsylvania (spoken
>as a Pennsylvanian of (some) German decent). }}

>I don't know how long this advantage lasted, but for a while, these
>rifles were hard on British officers (who wore even _more_
>fancy.shiny.pretties than did the regular soldiers).
> 
>>Of course, it didn't hurt any that the British liked to wear bright red
>>targets ... er ... coats and march down forest roads in tight formation
>>to the accompanyment of drums.

>Does anyone know _why_ they did this??
>(Asking for info, _I_ sure don't.)

I'm not certain, but maybe it was because the brass liked the pomp
and show, and nobody ever asks a dog soldier what he wants. Maybe
one of our British cousins could tell us?

>--
>David Winters  
>dcwst8@unix.cis.pitt.edu OR winters@vms.cis.pitt.edu

>          Illigitimi non carborundum.

		Amen!
REB

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Kevin Kadow)
Subject: Re: 1-800-BATF-GUNS
Organization: Technology News, IIT, Chicago, IL
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 05:03:27 GMT

In article <archer.96@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
)In article <1992Jul20.171527.6365@convex.com> Mike Tighe <tighe@convex.COM> writes:
)
)>pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard ) writes:
)>>pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) writes:
)>>
)>>>    Has anyone stopped to think about the regular city police stations? Any
)>>>    city that uses a 9-1-1 system, has it. If you call the 9-1-1 number and
)>>>    say, "help, there's some---..." and hang up in the middle of the sentence,
)>>>    the dispatcher already has your Ph#, name(s), address, and what vehicles
)>>>    are registered to that residence(at least here they do). A patrol car will
)>>>    be there shortly, if available. I happen to know it as fact, but not
)>>>    everyone does. They can even nail you for a prank phone call if you call
)>>>    there.
)>>
)
)In Ca., they also have whether or not you own an "assault weapon."

In IL they have info if you have a Firearm owner's ID, which means you might
(horror of horrors) actually own a gun or ammunition.

-- 
   If the opposite of "pro" is "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

technews@iitmax.iit.edu                           kadokev@harpo.iit.edu
                         My Employer Disagrees.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn)
Subject: Bush and his Crime Bill
Organization: Illinois Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 23:20:09 GMT

In article <veal.132@utkvm1.utk.edu> veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
writes:
>George Bush:  Pays lip service to gun rights, and promised no new gun
>laws along with no new taxes.  In reality, and this is backed up by
>several "form letters" from the White House, he sees gun rights as
>a political football.  He'll sell them to the Democrats for a broader
>death penalty and easing of the exclusionary rule for "good faith" searches
>and seizures.

It amazes me that anybody considers this a good deal.  Disarm the
people, kill the people, imprison the people.  This isn't a trade-off,
it's a statist victory.

Sigh.  And Bush is probably most pro-gun of the major candidates.

If Bush is willing to trade away our gun rights for a broader death
penalty and a weaker exclusionary rule, I'd certainly be willing to
turn the tables and trade away his broader death penalty and weaker
exclusionary rule in return for keeping my gun rights.  Frankly, I
don't care much either way about the death penalty, and I think
weakening the exclusionary rule is a very bad idea.

Screw Bush.  I say we scuttle his so-called "Crime Bill."
-- 

Mark Draughn    | <draughn@iitmax.iit.edu> or <SYSMARK@IITVAX> on BITNET
----------------+ Academic Computing Center, Illinois Institute of Technology
+1 312 567 5962 | 10 W. 31st Street, Chicago, Illinois  60616
From: gonzalez@bbn.com (Jim Gonzalez)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Clinton Shows His True Colors
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:45:47 GMT
Reply-To: gonzalez@BBN.COM (Jim Gonzalez)
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In article <1992Jul29.042523.12801@convex.com> tighe@convex.com writes:
>
>From Dallas Morning News, 24-Jul-92 page 10A:
>
>        "We ought to be for the Brady Bill and we ought to take AK-47s 
> 	and the Uzis off the streets of America."

and:		

>        Addressing about 2000 Texans during a light rain at City Hall,
>	Mr. Clinton stressed he was not for gun control.

A Boston Globe article heralding the formation of a CPHV chapter here 
in Massachusetts last week, included the following:

    [Boston Police Commissioner] Roache said he supported the new 
    group's efforts, which he said he preferred to call "violence 
    control", not gun control.

Is it possible that "gun control" has gotten a bad name, and that 
they're looking for a more-appealing label?

				-Jim.
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Washington State gun buy-back
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:05:01 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <1992Jul22.215727.11458@microsoft.com> alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:
>The operation is being run privately due to a Washington State law
>which specifies that confiscated guns must be sold by auction; since
>the planners of this buy-back wish to destroy them rather than selling
>them back into circulation, they are running the operation through a
>private group and avoiding government participation.
>
>The operation is endorsed by a number of government officials, including
>Seattle Mayor Norm Rice and Police Chief Fitzsimons.  Anyone wishing to

In other words, although the law prohibits the government from
destroying guns, government officials are involved in an operation
to circumvent the intent of the law. Is this a STRAWMAN transaction?

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.women
From: veal@utkux1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for guns and domestic violence
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 21:56:52 GMT

In article <70574@apple.Apple.COM> earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace) 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. Noone needs an
>>automatic weapon with that kind of firepower for self defense. Gang
>>members however find it an excellent weapon for turf wars.
>>...

>Yes, that's right, the "public" should be prevented from having anything that
>might cause harm to one another.  After all, the "public" CAN NOT BE TRUSTED.
>Only the government can be trusted.  Only your elected leaders can be trusted.
>Do not trust anyone not associated with the government!

>We all know the government exists only to serve the public and it should have
>all the weapons and power because it would never abuse our trust.

>Hey, am I the only one who has noticed this "trust only the government"
>attitude lately?  Why do you trust the government, but not your fellow man?

     Good luck on an answer.  I still haven't figured out the people who
scream that the government is corrupt and in the same sentence that only
the government should have guns.

>Doesn't make any sense to me.

     If it ever does, give me call.

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Random gun control
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 00:56:34 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <1992Jul27.053457.16817@athena.mit.edu> sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
>>Please explain why it is that the right to freedom to associate does NOT
>>confer the privilege of driving as a means of exercising that right (driving
>>being the most efficient way for the average person to get around to 
>>associate with others);
>
>Walking doesn't require the use of any public facility, while driving
>must generally use and wear a public resource.

Who do you think owns all those sidewalks?  Usually, it is local government.

-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:18437 alt.politics.clinton:1151
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: "Burglar Tools" (Was: "Direct" methods of crime control)
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:57:26 GMT
	<ATAYLOR.92Jul29080532@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<1992Jul29.184750.14146@SSD.intel.com>
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <1992Jul29.184750.14146@SSD.intel.com> hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
<   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.

	Ok, add all large lumber & trees to the list of "burglar
	tools" to be restricted.

	Hmmm....this here list is getting kinda long.....
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: schow@sol.UVic.CA (Stirling Chow)
Subject: Re: Washington State gun buy-back
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C. CANADA
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 15:54:07 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.195003.19727@rice.edu> kossack@qvi.com writes:
>   obtain firearms that are not registered to you.  To what use 
>   those firearms will be put after being "destroyed" is another 
>   matter entirely.  Just to be on the safe side, bring along a 
>
>-- 
> Jordan M Kossack  |  "Don't dial 911;    
> kossack@rice.edu  |   Dial M1911A and let it ring seven times." 
>  +1 713 240 2073  |         -- sybok@m37-332-1.MIT.EDU (The Terminator)
>  

   As far as I have heard, they are planning to melt-down all the firearms that
they obtain and create a statue in memory of all those who have died due to
firearms.

PPt|[k
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc,rec.autos
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: Ban the Killer of 300,000 (losing your cars)
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:39:17 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.151835.20580@Princeton.EDU>, pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
|> In article <14jfe6INN8hd@agate.berkeley.edu> tedrick@triangle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes:
|> >Banning cars has been treated of something of a joke, but
|> >if you look more closely governments are squeezing the
|> >balls of car owners ever more tightly, to get more cash
|> >from them, and more control over them.
|>                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> More control?!  When was the last time you tried to drive somewhere
|> without the use of a road?  It seems to me that if it weren't for
|> government cars would be useless in the first place.
|> 
|> Paul.
|> 

Not at all Paul. Hey I'm a poet... ;-)

There would just be a lot more of them with 4wd and 8"+ ground clearance.

				mike

| Because the sentance against an evil deed is not executed quickly the |
| hearts of the sons of men amoung them are fully given to do evil.     |
| - Eccl 8:11                                                           |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Subject: Phillip M. Hallam-Baker Says "The US Marines are Jerks"  
Organization: Rice University
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 22:52:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.195818.3033@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>Assault rifles are the weapon of the heavy duty psycho or major league
>crook or some jerk playing at being one. 

	Well, Phillip, that's an interesting comment on the USMC. 

>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.

	Well, as a Texan, I think I have a good idea of what the 
   US-Mexican border is really like.  Maybe Phillip can explain 
   what movies he got his information from.  Better yet, perhaps 
   he would be willing to back up his claim by driving into Mexico 
   with a Colt O-frame on his dashboard.  Buenos suerte.  

>  
>knocking off 9-11 stores 

	What in tarnation is a 9-11 store?  Is that anything like 
   the convenience store chain "Stop-n-Rob" ???  


-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  "Don't dial 911;    
 kossack@rice.edu  |   Dial M1911A and let it ring seven times." 
  +1 713 240 2073  |         -- sybok@m37-332-1.MIT.EDU (The Terminator)