HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: robs@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert Sipe)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Sign seen at Bush rally
Date: 5 Nov 92 00:33:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Boeing

>>>>think about the types of firearms the Framers had in mind when
>>>>they wrote it. Do you think they ever in their wildest dreams
>>>>thought about fully automatic guns?  About plastic pistols that
>>>>can pass thru metal detectors undetected?  About six-shooters?
>>>>About Thompson Submachine guns? About Gloks and Uzis and 
>>>>bazooks and rocket lauchcers fer chrissakes?  They were talking
>>>>about MUSKETS!  They were writing about the kind of weapon 
>>>>for which you load a ball, load in powder, tamp it down, lay
>>>>a fuse on it, ignite the fuse with a burning ember... THIS
>>>>is the kind of weapon they wanted citizens to be able to keep
>>>>and bear. 
>
>That is one of the MOST stupid things I have ever heard. Look, if they 
>were thinking of ONLY muskets, they would have said that specifically
>in the amendment. Don't you think that they were trying to account for
>future technologies when the founders wrote the consistitution? That is why
>they worded it the way that they did.. so that no one would be bounded to
>out-dated technologies, methods, or attitudes. There was a plan behind
>being so non-specific, and so very vague.







here here, if that was the case then the government could refuse to allow
news to be broadcast on the TV or radio, since the framers certainly could
not have envisioned those inventions.  Ben F and Thomas J were much
smarter than that.  They were aware that history allows people to improve
technology.








-- 
Statement made by Oliver North when asked to comment on Clinton's draft
record.  "I would rather vote for Jane Fonda than Gov. Clinton!  At least
she has been to North Vietnam."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jbf@wts.com (Jens B. Fiederer)
Subject: Re: I HATE to vote for Bush! But...
Organization: Wegmans Transaction Services
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:46:41 GMT

In article <1689694B8.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>       From the reports I've been hearing, the Libertarian votes haven't
>even been counted yet.
>       Now, I understand and accept the right of the news to ignore
>whomever they want to ignore.  But if the *election commisions* are
>ignoring them (and other minor parties) I'm annoyed.  As far as they
>are concnered a vote for Clinton should be the same as a vote for
>Bush is the same as a vote for Marrou.  The should be *NO* favoritism
>when counting votes.
>       If the media wants to ignore Libertarian et al election returns,
>that's fine.  The idea that they weren't counted by the government
>bothers me.
I couldn't find out from the media how my favorite candidates did, so I
called the county board of elections - try that.

They gave me results for my county and town: Marrou got about 700 votes
county wide (less than .5 % of the vote -- he was slammed throughout the
country by the Perot candidacy, getting less than half of what Ron Paul
got), and Norma Segal, running for Senate against D'Amato and Abrams, got
well over 7000 votes, for about 2.4% of the total).

You can call 1-900-4LIBERTY to get various vote reports throughout the
country (can't zoom in to your area, but you do have a few menu choices) at
about $2 a minute.  I did, and we got some decent results in NH, NV,
and Pennsylvania (others, too, but I don't remember them all).

Jens
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Summary: The RKBA, and how you los it
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:58:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.041425.24217@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
>Guns are a lot different from knives.  I can sit a block away with
>a knife and be considered a mild threat - but a gun makes me a 
>major threat.  I've had this argument before  "oh then let's ban
>steak knives" - tell that to the people in Killeen.  If that guy
>had a steak knife 90% of his victims might be alive.  Guns are
>a very different matter.

Yes, and if Dr. Gratia had had her gun, which she had left at home because 
it is illegal for citizens to carry reasonable means of self defense,  they 
might ALL still be alive.  The disturbed individual responsible for those 
deaths killed his first two victims with a pickup truck and could have done 
better with a pipe bomb or a gallon of gasoline.  

The responsibilty for actions rest with the individual who commits them, not 
with his tools.


>But as many people are fond of telling me - the RKBA is mentioned in
>the Constitution.  What if the majority age was pushed up?  Would you
>have the same argument? 

Sure.

>I'm only this newsgroup because the discussion swerved over here
>from another one.  When it peters out I'm sure I won't be back.
>From what I've heard - the RKBA is considered above all that. No
>licenses wanted, no waiting period, no nothing, so why some rules
>but not others?

You'll have to be a little more clear here.  What rules?

>
>I've never run into someone so "reasonable" and "prudent" I'd want
>his opinion to endanger my life.  Certainly not the guy who
>posted a message saying that my pointing a gun into a schoolyard
>was at worst "disturbing the peace"


I'm afraid that it is just menacing, or disturbing the peace, until he 
points it at an individual, when it becomes assault.
>
>>    What about just sitting on the bus, holding the gun and laughing
>>    uncontrollably?  Who is the "reasonable" person who gets to forbid
>>    this.  I've seen plenty of people on the net who might think that
>>    this is not as threatening as I do.  Do they get to make that
>>    decision?
>> 
>> The decision is made by a court, based upon a "reasonable and prudent"
>> test (that may go to a jury). 
>>`
>But can they arrest me or not?  If yes - then I am breaking the law,
>if not then why should I go to the jury.
>

That depends on if it is illegal to laugh and hold a gun.  If it is illegal, 
then they can arrest you.  (Mind you, the law would be unconstitutional, but 
that is a separate issue.)

>I think you are wrong - I've seen many arguments that place the
>RKBA above all laws.  Do you think they are right?

You may have mis-interprested them.  Would you please be more specific?

>
>marc colten
>
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:49:20 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Nov6.210330.3850@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:

> If 10 feet is "knife range" why
> wasn't [Hennard] knifed to death as he killed all those people?  Advantage gun -

Nice of you to reserve this advantage exclusively to the criminal.

> She could have shot him down, or frozen, or been shot down as she tried,
> or hit another innocent person - it happens in combat

You're arguing that a gun is not useful because it doesn't work ALL THE TIME.
Forgive me for not sharing your unreasonably high standards.  (I'm assuming
you'll get this reply -- after all, you could drop dead, be hit by a bus, or 
have contracted Alzheimer's by the time it gets to you.)

> it happens in 
> police raids, why do you assume some relatively untrained (I doubt a
> shooting range is enough preparation for the real thing) 

Oh?  So, like, does your local police department advertise for volunteer
targets?

> Eliminating all rules might have stopped
> the guy or might have simply created more people with the firepower to settle
> fender bender with guns.  Keeping the guns out of the hands of people like
> Hennard will save lives, not arming every moron with the cash to buy one.

Ah, and here's the crux of the argument.  "The average person is a moron."
Strange how many gun-control advocates think, "I know *I* could be trusted
to use a gun safely if I wanted to have one, but then again, I'm above
average, and I'm definitely worried about the average person having one."

Hint:  The average American head of household is NOT Fred Flintstone, 
Desi Arnaz, Archie Bunker, Ralph Kramden, Al Bundy, Gilligan, or Homer
Simpson.
-- 

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...
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Gun control laws proposed in Colorado
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:07:36 GMT
Distribution: talk



There were some recent tragedies here in Colorado.  In separate incidents,
two teenagers and a state trooper were shot and killed.

As a result, State Senator Regis Groff and a few others are pushing for
state wide gun control laws -- specifically a waiting period on handguns
and a ban on so-called "assault weapons".  Governor Roy Romer said, "I
feel we need something like the Brady Bill in WHATEVER FORM IT TAKES"
[emphasis mine -- dlo].

When these people were killed, I felt a combination of outrage and a
sinking feeling in my gut.  But similar laws have done nothing to reduce
such crime anywhere else; why should anybody believe they will do so
here?  Dammit, Colorado already has one of the lowest crime rates in the
country, and they want to do something that will not only be ineffective
in lowering it further, but will likely make things worse.

I'd like to think that Groff, Romer, et.al. are just ignorant of the
effects of such laws rather than using these incidents for their own
aggrandizement.  In either case, it is obvious that people are being
swept up in the emotion of all this, but I am hoping cooler heads will
prevail.

<sigh> I wanted to spend some money on some ski stuff, but I guess I'll
have send it to the NRA instead.
--
David Olson   dlo@druwa.ATT.COM
"Keep in mind that I am speaking from Cambridge Massachusetts, which is
 about as far out as you can get."  Robert Reich, economic advisor to
 Bill Clinton, on "This Week with David Brinkley" 11/08/92
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: What gun bans might come about under Clinton?
Date: 10 Nov 1992 09:22:05 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Matthew Harrington writes:

"Has Clinton outright said that he supports ban of 'assault'
rifles and semi-autos."

----------------------------------

Yes.  In a published position paper.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Organization: The Cat Factory
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 02:27:59 GMT


In article <73907@hydra.gatech.EDU>, gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox) writes:

}Ahem. The guy in Killeen had a Glock. This is a relatively short-barrelled
}pistol.  Like most pistols, the range at which you can actually hit anything
}is about 10 feet, good knife range. Beyond that, only the most amazing amount
}of luck, practice and a much better pistol than a Glock will allow you to hit
}the side of a barn. ...

Ahem yourself.  This is utter rubbish.

The Glock is one of the best combat pistols on the market.  I can shoot
2.5" groups with one at 25 feet all day -- and I don't like Glocks (I can
shoot 1" groups at that distance with a SIG -- a pistol I'm particularly
fond of).  I know people who can easily do the same at 25 _yards_.

BTW, 21 feet is good knife range.  If your gun is in its holster and my
knife is in my hand I can cover 21 feet and slash your throat before you
can draw and fire -- and I'm not a trained knife fighter.

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483
Santa Monica, CA  90405
From: watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt)
Subject: Re: felons
Originator: swatt@mickey.CS.Yale.Edu
Keywords: felons
Organization: Yale University, Computing & Information Systems
Distribution: talk
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 15:36:42 GMT


In article <1djkmnINN4fn@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu>, strait@uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey C. Strait) writes:
|> In a guest commentary in this mornings local paper (Champaign),
|> Sen. Paul Simon (Socialist, IL) slammed the NRA as supporting
|> "guns for felons".  He accused the NRA of opposing his legislation
|> aimmed at disallowing convicted felons from petitioning for
|> permission to buy a gun.
|> 
|> Can anyone educate me as to the substance of this bill, and
|> the NRA's position?  I read in a magazine that the NRA had
|> supported, in principle, most of it.
|> 
|> True to form, he went on to imply that the NRA's opposition
|> to waiting periods also demonstrates that the NRA is 
|> insensitive to the criminal misuse of guns.
|> 
      

NPR did a story on this, claiming that felons were being "re-armed at
taxpayer expense".

There is a procedure (probably in the '68 GCA) by which persons
disqualified from purchasing a firearm may have their rights restored.
There is a division of the BATF staffed to deal with such requests (hence,
the "at taxpayer expense" bit).  I don't know the details of the procedure,
but I find it difficult to believe that persons convicted of violent
crimes with firearms would qualify.  My understanding is most cases
involve paperwork violation convictions by FFL holders, people formerly
committed to mental institutions but now sane, that sort of thing.

Apparently, the latest thrust is to eliminate this administrative
procedure to restore firearm purchase rights.  What I haven't seen
is any claim that anyone whose rights were so restored went on to
commit a violent crime.
-- 
  Alan S. Watt
  Yale University			Computing and Information Systems
  Box 2112 Yale Station			(203) 432-6602
  New Haven, CT  06520-2112		Watt-Alan@Yale.Edu
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:51:30 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson) /  2:00 pm  Nov  6, 1992 /

>Oooh, good answer.  Funny thing, in those states* that allow virtually any
>law-abiding citizen to carry concealed, colten's fantastic vision of a
>small-arms race simply hasn't happened.
>

We had a good example of how law abiding carry can work this weekend.
It has become a gang initiation rite to shoot at somebody.  (This isn't an
idea indigenous to Washington state, it's happening all over the US.)
Drive by shootings are one of the more popular methods.  This weekend a
couple of gang bangers tried this.  They took a shot at some poor random
bastard on a street corner.  The pedestrian next to the (intended)
victim returned fire.  Hit the driver of the car in the head, wounding
him, not too seriously.

Our citizen injured nobody else.  The unwounded gang member escaped on
foot, while the driver was taken into custody.  Pending further reports
sounds like good guys 1, bad guys zip.

Rick.
From: smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: A Trial Balloon on Registered Keys
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:58:44 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Nov6.041348.18320@news.eng.convex.com>, gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner) writes:

>	WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT.  THE NSA, 
>	FBI, and the entire litany of 3 character alphabet soups are 
>	OUR SERVANTS NOT OUR MASTERS.

Ah.  This explains why the NHTSA gets away with all its crap...

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak)
Subject: Special Attention Colorado!!!
Originator: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:38:37 GMT


David Olson dlo@druwa.ATT.COM writes:
>There were some recent tragedies here in Colorado.  In separate incidents,
>two teenagers and a state trooper were shot and killed.

>As a result, State Senator Regis Groff and a few others are pushing for
>state wide gun control laws -- specifically a waiting period on handguns
>and a ban on so-called "assault weapons".  Governor Roy Romer said, "I
>feel we need something like the Brady Bill in WHATEVER FORM IT TAKES"
>[emphasis mine -- dlo].

 The problem is these two bozos have said that they want the 
 Brady bill to "keep guns out of the hands of kids".  My question
 is, "how the hell is the Brady bill going to accomplish this?".
 I'm in the process of writting these two + my state Rep & Senator,
 asking this exact question.  A 15 year old cannot legaly purchase
 ANY type of gun, (BB guns included), in Colorado.  So how will these
 "laws" stop kids from getting guns?  It's obvious that they didn't
 pick these guns up at the local Wal-Mart.

 If you live in Colorado PLEASE write or call State Senator Regis Groff,
 and Governor Roy Romer.  Ask their staff these questions.  Tell them
 that you do NOT support these new laws.  Their numbers are:

		(303) 866-2471	Romer
		(303) 388-2260	Groff

                                Bill Vojak
                                Bill_Vojak@stortek.com
                                NRA, ILA, CFC

------------------------------------------
Anti-Gun President, Anti-Gun Congress,
Better buy what you want BEFORE Dec 31.
----------------------------------------

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt)
Subject: Re: I HATE to vote for Bush! But...
Originator: swatt@mickey.CS.Yale.Edu
Organization: Yale University, Computing & Information Systems
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:58:50 GMT


In article <1992Nov5.00759.13720@ms.uky.edu>, miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:
|> Congrats Libertarian voters! Clinton's in the White House and Congress is
|> "shaking" from the resounding "message" that was sent.
|> <cough>
|> Looks like Perot did the message sending.                               
|> 

Let's get one thing straight: if you want someone to blame for Clinton
being elected, George Bush is your man, not us Libertarian voters.  He
took a 90% approval rating and parlayed that into a landslide electoral
defeat in just two years.  He inherited a three-times successful coallition
from Regan and was unable to either hang onto it or build a new one.

Perot did indeed send a message, and I happy for it.  When we do finally
get vote totals for the Libertarian ticket, I'd be interested in calculating
votes/$$ spent for all four campaigns.  I also think the 45% of *registered*
voters who stayed home sent a message, but nobody is tuning into it.

As for CT, the voters here sent a strong message that they're more
comfortable yelling "throw the bums out" at the *same* bums they
had last time.  The new CT Congressional delegation will be the same as
the old one.  I don't have results for all the state offices, but the
same pattern appears there.  Redistricting probably had more effect
on the races than any of the so-called "issues".  As soon as I have
complete results, I will post a summary of the CT races.
-- 
  Alan S. Watt
  Yale University			Computing and Information Systems
  Box 2112 Yale Station			(203) 432-6602
  New Haven, CT  06520-2112		Watt-Alan@Yale.Edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Eva Clayton bio
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 03:01:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.141656.25635@bnr.ca> ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board) writes:
>|> ...The Amendment
>|> mentions the militia, however this does not mean the National
>|> Guard: According the the Supreme Court, "militia" as used in
>|> the Second Amendment means all citizens "physically capable of
>|> acting in concert for the common defense." This is fairly close
>|> to the definition in current federal law (10 USC 311) of all
>|> males between the ages of 17 and 45. It also resembles the definition
>|> provided by such framers of the Constitution as Col. George Mason
>|> (of the Virginia Militia), "everyone, except for a few public officials."

>OK, but the 2nd amendment specifically mentions a "well-regulated" militia
>doesn't it. How does "well-regulated" limit your definition above?

The Amendment says a well regulated militia is necessary. Presumably
"well regulated" means well armed, trained and organized: The militia,
composed of all able-bodied citizens, should be well armed, trained and
organized. It's worth noting that there was substantial concern when 
the Amendment was proposed, that the government would decide they
didn't want a milita and would destroy it by neglect. In this context,
the second clause makes a great deal of sense: The people (if the
consider it necessary) can arm and train themselves. This assures
the existance of an armed and trained population (a critical 
prerequsite for the necessary "well regulated militias"), no matter
how the current government feels about it.

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder
From: glngar01@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Request (Hi Standard Mod. 10 )
Date: 13 Nov 92 16:31:01 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <1992Nov13.182844.203269@uctvax.uct.ac.za>, glngar01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
> I have 2 requests:
> 
> 1:My VAX(!!!) does not get rec.guns. Where can I get the groups posts?
> 
> 2:I would like to hear from Hi Standard Mod. 10 owners (thats the 5-shot
> semi-auto bullpup shotgun they produced for the police way back when) I can get
> one for the equivalent of $500.


OOOPS.
Please E-mail me as i'm on Vacation 'till Feb..

Thanx
Gary.
From: jimc@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Jim Cox)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Date: 9 Nov 92 19:05:33 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin Tx.

In article <1992Nov09.114146.33641@watson.ibm.com> mjp@vnet.ibm.com (Michael J. Phelps) writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov6.170211.18927@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
>|> 
>|> In the first place who said they couldn't "carry concealed" - they
>|> could apply for licenses and get the guns.  Hell, they sell them
>
>Texas does not allow citizens to carry concealed.  They can carry in their
>cars, but not on their person.  So, in answer to your question, the state
>of Texas sez they couldn't carry concealed.  
>

Micheal, you are exactly correct on the concealed carry issue, but carry 
in a car is only under strictly defined conditions.  What the Dr. Suzanne
Gratia was doing was (and still is) illegal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Jim Cox                            Internet: jimc@bartman.sps.mot.com
Phone: (512) 891-3182          UUCP Address: cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!otis!jimc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: exudms@exu.ericsson.se (Dave)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Ownership
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:59:21 GMT
Reply-To: exudms@exu.ericsson.se
Distribution: tx
Organization: E
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

Hello all,
I'm new to this group and would like to start with "no I don't believe that anyone, just anyone should have the freedom to own or carry and type of firearms".But, 
my question is: 

1) What is the legal rights of a civilian that may be able (if) to obtain a lisense/
permit to carry a hand gun?

2) Is there a legal lisense/permit a business owner can get, obtain, aquire?

3) If so, what are the requirements?

4) If this is legal, can you tell me the source to contact, or literature on this?

Sorry to be ignorant of the current gun laws, if you can answer my question,
please E-mail me on this, thanks in advance!

Dave