HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ghm@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: TIME is on the ropes, asks for forgive
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 06:12:03 GMT

db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:

>In article <1907@esl.ESL.COM> drm@esl.com writes:
>>
>>I noticed that a recent (post-New Year's) issue of Time had an editorial  
>>cartoon in which the "Somalian Rifle Associaiton" asserted their rights to  
>>deep and bear rocket launchers in the face of Marines bent on confiscating  
>>arms used in thuggery.
>>
>Time makes a good point! I thought you lot would support
>the right of the Somalis to keep and bear arms. Is it one
>rule for citizens of the USA and another for citizens of other
>countries?

Well, maybe the US Marines (and Australian forces) _would_ be better
occupied issuing guns and ammunition to the people who don't have
them rather than trying to take them away from those who do.  In the
long run, it might be more successful.  However, to claim (as some
people have done) that the situation in Somalia is somehow caused by
the availability of guns is to miss the point.  What happened in
Somalia is at least partly a consequence of the collapse of an
authoritarian "socialist" regime (actually a military dictatorship
established with the support of the USSR) which denied individual
rights.  The collapse left a power vacuum, and nature  -  as usual  -
abhorred this.  Teaching the Somalis to depend on external assistance
won't do much for their long-term survival.

Geoff Miller  (g-miller@adfa.oz.au)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:46:36 GMT

In article <9301092315.08@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>The question, then, is how does the state govern the sale of weapons
>to law-abiding citizens while keeping felons from not having them
>and at the same time not infringing on anybodies rights?

No, the question is "since the state can't close illegal channels that
are, by usage, capable of supplying felons, what benefits are there to
restricting legal channels?"  Kelly wants to argue about the
properties of a valve on the end of a leaky hose.

>For one thing, I don't see anyone here talking about how to get rid
>of blackmarket guns.  Everyone here seems to ignore that problem.

We don't ignore it at all.  Its existence dooms gun control efforts
though.

-andy
--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:46:30 GMT

In article <9301091958.22@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:

>If I am cornered in my home, I am allowed under the law to defend myself.
>
>There is nothing wrong with public defense.  I just don't think that
>anyone should be able to buy a gun and carry it around the street.  At
>least in this town, there are drug dealers who would love to be able to
>go in and buy what they want off the shelf.

My goodness!  Something akin to a point! 
I hate to break this obviously upsetting news to you, but those drug
dealers who you've been talking about, you know, the ones who've been
shooting up the neighborhood as you mentioned in previous posts,
already have guns, cheaper, and a better selection than those of us
who can buy legally.  No matter what restrictions you place on the
rest of us.


>>Just concealed.  Indiana has concealed carry permit system, and quite
>>a lot of people do carry, and we have a very low rate of violent crime
>>(except up in the corner of the state near Chicago.  Could this mean
>>that availablility of guns has nothing to do with violence???
>
>So how come the carry permit system doesn't work up in the corner of
>the state near Chicago?

I didn't say that it didn't.  I said that the corner near Chicago had
a higher rate of violent crime.  It's still lower there than many
places.

>>Yes.  An estimated 5%, but such numbers are very tricky to come by
>>since most people don't flaunt the fact they break the law.  Even in
>>places where concealed carry is permissible it's hard to gather data
>>because most people simply won't give away vital parts of their
>>defense plan.
>>
>>Once again, I ask, do you have a point?
>
>Yes, I don't feel safe if anyone can just buy a gun even if they are
>crazy, or drug dealers, or car jackers.

So, what you're advocating is that we should limit the availability of
guns only to people who really really need one?  And just who is going
to make this judgement call?  And will you care to share
responsibility for the assault when someone who could have easily
defended themselves is unable to?  Or are you going to give us each
bodyguards?  
-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Chief of Tranquility  #My Opinions! NotIU's!#Purveyor of
EMT-D         # Base, Lawrence Co. IN # Legalize Explosives!#nontraditional
N9ISY (tech)  # Somewhere out on the  # Politicians prefer  #family values
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over# unarmed peasants.   #Space For Rent
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mdeering@agsm.ucla.edu (Michael Deering)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: UCLA, Anderson Graduate School Of Management
Date: 4 Jan 93 10:08:26 PST

In article <1992Dec31.194342.14590@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>
>>In Arizona, I believe, there is now a move to restrict the current laws
>>that allow children to carry concealed weapons, as many parents are
>>concerned that it has become fashionable for junior high students to
>>carry concealed weapons.
>
>	Nonsense.  In AZ it illegal for _adults_ to carry concealed
>weapons.   Either you got the state wrong or the whole story is 
>simply wrong.   
>
>>What percentage of California residents over 18 carry legally licensed
>>handguns?  You're speculating.
>
>	Close to zero.  You almost have to be a cop in that state, 
>if I understand correctly.  
> 

Very close to zero.  In Kalifornia it is illegal for a person between the 
ages of 18 and 21 to purchase or possess a handgun.  They may purchase a rifle 
or shotgun however.  The sole exception to the above is if under the direct 
supervision of a parent or guardian they may use one.  Note, not persmission, 
_supervision_.  

Mick
>
>
>JD


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Fight the bastards (was Re: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:47:10 GMT

In article <9301041848.46@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>Please consider the following questions seriously.  It is my attempt to
>>to understand whether what you advocate has a chance at success.
>>
>>
>>What criteria would you use?
>
>Whether the applicant enjoys a healthy social relationship with his
>family, community, and society.

I'm a loner few friends.  Define "healty."  What if you're new in town and 
being stalked?  How do you prevent the local gun banners like yourself from 
defining anyone who wants reasonable means of self-defences as "violently 
undstable."

>
>>How would you obtain the data you need to make a decision?  
>
>FBI report
>State police and court report
>verifiable references of friends and/or neighbors

So citizens should ask the state and their friends and neighbors before 
exercizing basic civil liberties.

>
>>How fast could you get the relevant information?  
>
>The first two in probably 72 hours.
>The last would probably take a couple of weeks.

Unless you decide to arbitrarily deny the permission you are not permitted 
under the constitution to require.  In this case, you can just fail to 
return the paperwork.

>
>>What training or qualifications do you need to make a decision?  
>
>The ability to understand police and court records, and the ability
>to understand basic psychology.

Don't forget the politically correct social outlook to get the job denying, 
I mean approving, permits.

>
>>What would be the probability of making the wrong decision?  
>
>20% or less?

Any denial of means of self-defense is too many.

>
>>If you make the wrong decision, what would your responsibility be?
>
>None, under current laws.

So you can freely deny civil liberties with no penalty.

>
>>Keep in mind that the wrong decision could be to deny as well as allow.
>>Either way, lives could be in jeopardy.
>
>This is true.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:19:15 GMT

In article <C0p3s2.DAt@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves) writes:
>>Except for one that requires taking of finger prints as a basis for
>>identification.
>
>Nope, that's relatively easy to circumvent too.
>
I'll bite?  How?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: The NRA will always be right wing.
Date: 9 Jan 1993 04:48:11 +1030
Organization: PAX - Public Access Unix (Adelaide,South Australia) - Anonymous Service
Reply-To: anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au
NNTP-Posting-Host: flash.pax.tpa.com.au


Don Baldwin laments that the gun lobby is weighed down with the label
of hard-core conservative.

Here is some advice:  Give up.  The NRA will always be right wing.
I doubt that any NRA directors are losing any sleep over Colorado
Amendment 2.  Maybe one or two of them have some closeted qualms.
The other 90 or so (or however many there are) think that fags
deserve no sympathy.  If you don't believe it, ask Wayne LaPierre
how many homosexuals there are in the NRA.

In case you missed it, the NRA attacked one of its enemies in Colorado
last year by raising the issue of flag burning.  Guess which side it
was on.

It is true that the GOP has been seriously damaged by its reactionary
posterior.  The NRA is a big part of its problem.  The GOP is either going
to go down the toilet, or ax the NRA and other fanatics in the party,
or both.

Brought to you by the Society for Preservation of Human Life.


--
** Anonymity & Privacy by PAX - Public Access Unix (Adelaide,South Australia) **

anon.admin@pax.tpa.com.au (a human)   anon.info@pax.tpa.com.au    (for help)
anon.ping@pax.tpa.com.au  (get alias) anon.key@pax.tpa.com.au     (register key)
anon.###@pax.tpa.com.au   (reply)     anon.post.grp@pax.tpa.com.au (post to grp)
anon.list@pax.tpa.com.au  (to mailing list about anonymous mailers)
anon.subscribe@pax.tpa.com.au         anon.unsubscribe@pax.tpa.com.au

For dialup Unix access phone +61-8-235-9010 - online registration.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: archer@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Judges and Jury Nullification (was Re: Traveling with a gun)
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:30:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.160251.8170@news.columbia.edu> pes3@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Paul Eric Stoufflet) writes:

>The first reason makes some sense (the second does not) but what occured
>to me is: What is the status of laws that have been disregarded by
>Jury Nullification?  They are still on the books, and I am not sure
>that such cases can be cited as precedents.  Is it better to be right in
>a lower court, or go for an appeal and get a favorable ruling in a
>higher court.  If Griswold vs. CT (illegal for married couples to use
>contraceptives) had been decided by jury nullification, would that
>law still be enforced?

The jury can only make a decision for a particular case.  Because of our 
double jepordy principle and the jury shield laws, a jury can 
aquit for any reason, but the law still stands.
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: communists + anarchists in the NRA
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:27:27 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee

In article <csjohn.726278939@watson.mtsu.edu> csjohn@watson.mtsu.edu (J Wallace) writes:
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!darwin.sura.net!knuth.mtsu.edu!watson.mtsu.edu!csjohn
>From: csjohn@watson.mtsu.edu (J Wallace)
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>Subject: Re: communists + anarchists in the NRA
>Date: 5 Jan 1993 18:10:55 -0600
>Organization: Dept of Comp Science, Middle Tenn State Univ, Murfreesboro, TN
>Lines: 16
>Message-ID: <csjohn.726278939@watson.mtsu.edu>
>References: <1993Jan5.161623.9558@uvm.edu>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: watson.mtsu.edu
>In <1993Jan5.161623.9558@uvm.edu> aforum@moose.uvm.edu (autonome forum) writes:
>
>
>>Just curious: how many other communists/anarchists are there in the
>>NRA besides us? Hopefully there are some other leftists in the group;
>>we can't let it get totally dominated by right-wing freaks!
>
>>	autonome forum
>>	aforum@moose.uvm.edu
>
>Is this a joke?
>Do you have a name, or are you just another cowardly crackpot?

You don't have to be a coward or a crackpot to want anonymity.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: Identifying felons (was Re: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:56:50 GMT


|Our state gun organization promoted an idea last year of afixing a 
|holographic symbol on the rear of our photo-ID driver's licenses
|for anyone eligible to own a gun.  The holographic symbol would be 
|difficult to forge, would be on the reverse of the license so no
|vendor not needing to see it would see it and would solve once and
|for all the bleat that ineligible people buy firearms at retail.

FOID card didn't stop the Moron Grove, IL handgun ban, nor
the Chicago handgun registration freeze or military-style semi-auto
ban.

|NRA opposed us and instead rode shod over us in promoting the instant
|background check that almost passed.  The state didn't want to do it
|because it would be "too much work."

|My conclusions are a) I don't know what the NRA advocates anymore and
|b) no one really gives a shit about keeping firearms out of the hands
|of felons; all this talk is a charade of smoke'n'magic to try
|and camoflage the real intent - gun confiscation and banning.

The NRA-affilated Illinois Rifle Association (James Valentino, Mr.
Pro-Gun Hard Core. Yeah Right.) negotiated with that imbecile State
Sen. William A. Marovitz (D-Chicago), currently dating Playboy's
Christie Hefner, to place on top of the FOID card a so-called "Instant
Check" that costs $2 per phone call. Of course, in Mr. Valentino's
well-known style of "negotiation," not a damn thing was received
from the gun controllers in return. No state preemption law. No state
CCW provision. No new law to prevent the confiscation of legally
owned firearms through the Chicago area "People's Republics." Zilch.

So, to get a firearm in the State of Illinois, you have to wade through
the following:

	(1) Get an FOID form, notarize it, send it, $5 check, and
	picture to the IL State Police.
	
	(2) Wait a couple of weeks for the FOID to come in the mail.
	
	I was listening to WLUP-AM (1000) and one of the DJ's said
	he sent his in THREE months ago and hasn't heard of it since.
	
	(3) Pay $2 for the gun shop to telephone the "Instant Check"
	number.	
	
	(4) Wait 72-hours for a handgun; 24 hours for a long gun.
	
ALL of this perpetrated by James Valentino and the IL State Rifle
Association, who also wrote the Chicago gun registration law.
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 11 Jan 1993 22:31:34 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <9301091934.40@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

> >>And the police are paid from the taxpayers money to protect her.
> >
> >Ah ha!  A blatantly wrong statement.  The Supreme Court has determined
> >that police have *no* obligation to protect *anyone*.
> 
> In what case?

South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (HOW) 396,15 L.Ed., 433 (1856).

You can find the same rulings in:

Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Cir. 686F.2d 616 (1882)
Reiff v. City of Philadelphia,477F.Supp.1262 (E.D.Pa. 1979)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A2d 1306 (D.C. App. 1983)
Riss v. City of New York, 293 N.Y. 2d 897 (1968)
Hartzler v. City of San Jose, App., 120 Cal.Rptr 5 (1975)
Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A.2d 1 (1981)
Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill App2d 460 (1968)
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
Marshall v. Winston, 389 S.E.2nd 902 (Va. 1990)

> The point is that everything isn't black and white.  There are gray areas
> where it is not easy to justify taking control of gun permits away from 
> the state.

You're thinking like a sheep.  The state has no power to control the
ownership or peaceful carry of firearms by law-abiding citizens.  Any
"control" it has of gun "permits" (the very word is incompatible with
"rights") is unconstitutional.

> If gun laws are changed to allow anyone who has the money to
> buy a gun...

No, I said, by LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS.  This does not mean that everybody
is required to get PERMISSION from the state to exercise a right.

> If the laws change
> to a system where gun dealers get there info from a computer terminal,
> then privacy laws in this country will have to change.

Nope.  The button puncher at K-Mart calls in your credit card and gets
told "Approved" or "Disapproved."  There's no difference in a gun store
dealer being required to do the same thing.
-- 

cdt@rocket.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: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: "Cop Killer Time Warner" (Was: Time-Warner)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<24753@galaxy.ucr.edu>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 22:08:30 GMT

<In article <24753@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:

<   Just a quick question about Time-Warner.  Was it Time-Warner that promoted
<   and defended Ice Tea's Cop Killer song?  

	The rapper Ice-T's number called "Cop Killer" was published
	and promoted by Time-Warner.

	Ice-T has found it difficult to perform in some venues,
	as neither local private security guards nor off-duty police
	(surprise, surprise) will provide security for his
	performance....and some places (Detroit?) apparently
	require off-duty police as security guards.




Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:32:21 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <pa142548.601.726243790@utkvm1.utk.edu> pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <9301021313.22@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>>>Then why are we threatening other people with jail?
>>>
>>>> The police would like to know who has guns.
>>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>And it is our duty to restrict that knowledge.
>>
>>Why is that?
>
>For the same reason it is our duty to restrict their knowledge of who 
>travels where, or of who owns what, or what people's medical records say:  
>because it is none of their business.

Of the above, only medical records are kept from police.

Would it make you feel good inside to know that ex-cons who were in for
murder or armed robbery could legally buy guns?

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The real gamble of self-defense with a gun
Date: 13 Jan 1993 01:12:25 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au () says:

>
>An argument has erupted with a one Richard Kelly on the question
>of the risks involved in using a gun for self-defense against
>a criminal.  No one has yet mentioned the greatest risk of
>all in such circumstances:
>
>Your opponent is not actually a criminal.  If you use a gun
>against him, you will be the criminal.
>
>the numerous cases where a man with a gun thought he was acting in
>self-defense, but wasn't.


       Actually, this IS the legal definition of "self-defense"
       A belief that you in immediate danger.

>No doubt most of you here will poo-poo this unhappy fate as an
>extremely remote possibility.  That might be acceptable as far as your
>personal business is concerned.  (Of course, if it turns out that you
>can't handle this responsibility, it will become everyone's business.)
>But if you're trying to persuade Mr. Kelly or me or anyone else that
>shooting the wrong man is a remote possibility in general, you ought to
>back it up with some actual facts.
>
>Speaking for myself, I declare that:
>
>I will always give another human being nearly limitless benefit of the
>doubt before pointing a gun at him or her.  If it means I or
>someone in my family might die needlessly, so be it.  At least I
>won't kill needlessly.


      Good.  Another defective gene eliminated.  :)
>
>--
>** Anonymity & Privacy by PAX - Public Access Unix (Adelaide,South Australia) **
>
>anon.admin@pax.tpa.com.au (a human)   anon.info@pax.tpa.com.au    (for help)
>anon.ping@pax.tpa.com.au  (get alias) anon.key@pax.tpa.com.au     (register key)
>anon.###@pax.tpa.com.au   (reply)     anon.post.grp@pax.tpa.com.au (post to grp)
>anon.list@pax.tpa.com.au  (to mailing list about anonymous mailers)
>anon.subscribe@pax.tpa.com.au         anon.unsubscribe@pax.tpa.com.au
>
>For dialup Unix access phone +61-8-235-9010 - online registration.
>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 7 Jan 93 19:39:22 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
> >
> >What does making that illegal have to do with keeping guns out of 
> >the hands of criminals ?  The illegal market for any good can 
> >supply almost anything if you have the money.  And criminals will 
> >spend the money to obtain the tools of their "trade."
> 
> So it's better to give up and have no restrictions on firearms?

YES!

give up & give people the constitutional rights they were supposed to
have all along!

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,`       "Are you hallucinating?" "Oh yes, but not right now."         `,`
`,`         - Ed Chigliak & Joel Fleishmann, Northern Exposure          `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:33:11 GMT

In article <9301061250.46@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>God forbid we should do something about "releasing convicted murderers and
>>armed robbers on a whim" instead of screwing down on everybody ELSE'S guns.
>
>Or perhaps we should let the police shoot more criminals.
>
I think that allowing potential victims the means of self-defense will be 
sufficient, without granting yet more power to the state.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns