HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: srg@quick.com (Spencer Garrett)
Subject: Re: Gun Purchase Laws
Organization: Quicksilver Engineering, Seattle USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 04:27:36 GMT

> starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (aaron greenwood) writes:
> 
> >Is there a FAQ list for talk.politics.guns.  One question I have
> >is in what states can you by guns without leaving a paper trail.

fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
> 
> None at all (at least not legally): All sales through a dealer
> require filling out a federal record of sale. The form includes

But many states (Washington, for instance) allow private-party
sales with no records of any kind.  Federal law prohibits such
sales across state boundaries, but citizens of these states can
transfer guns amoung themselves without governmental notice. :-)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Chris Luchini)
Subject: Re: Seattle Buy-Back Update
Reply-To: cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu
Organization: High Energy Physics, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 06:00:25 GMT

In article <82472@bcsaic.boeing.com>, rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:
>
>The point that Nick makes about getting "press" is important.  As one of the
>"anti's", I feel that such programs serve to dramatize the role of guns in
>our society.  To show that not everyone who owns a gun is happy with it.  For
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	I know quite a few staunch RKBA types that are not happy that they
	have to own guns. That's right, they think they have to own guns
	to be safe, they don't find guns at all interesting or likable, but
	feel that if they don't own them, they will be preyed upon by the
	strong of limb, etc. 


>some people, the possession of the gun alone was greater than their fear of
>criminals.  Gun possession, for these people, went from the lesser of two evils
>to the greater of two evils.

	Given the laws in some part of the country, yes, you are in more
	danger from the cops than from the criminals. . . of course the only
	way you can tell them apart is the cops are better dressed.

>The question is, how many gun owners really want
>to live in a society where gun possession is unrestricted?  NRA propaganda would
>have us believe that they all do.

	Bullshit. I for one don't want children or the insane, or those that
	have proven themselves violence prone to have guns. Neither does
	the NRA. Can you say STRAWMAN? I knew you could.


	I find it very interesting that these gun-buy programs are only
successfull when they actually offer real money: there was a highly publicized
gun turn in program in Chicago over Mothers day that didn't net a single gun.
The key here is _money_. I have several guns that I'd gladly turn over for
$50, hell even $25. If you look at what is actually turned in at these gun
buy programs, you will see that 90+% are non functional/junk guns. In fact
St Louis in their program eventually required that the guns be functional, as
well as limiting the number each person could turn in.

[now what sense does that make if the evil gun is going to make the owner kill
someone why limit the number you will take from each person, after all even if
that person has one gun, the gun will take over their mind and turn them into a
murderer..... ]

But even then, I can make quite a profit by buying Loran 25acp's for $24/each
in bulk and reselling them to the government for $50. . .

And there is the New York situation: the guy buy program there prompted at
least one guy to steal guns in order to turn them in: Hey the government
pays better than the neighborhood fence!
*1110 W. Green/Urbana IL 61801/217-333-0505/cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu 
* for sale: Springfield Armory Factory Comp, 38 Super, +3 mags. All new
* in box (never fired at all).  $650 or best offer over $600 as of Sep 30.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment Myths
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 03:13:00 GMT

Hey, speaking of second amendment, I noticed this quote in the paper the
other day:

If I were writing the Bill of Rights now, there wouldn't be any such
thing as the Second Amendment ... This has been subject to one of the
greatest pieces of fraud - I repeat the word fraud - on the American
public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.

                                 - Former Chief Justice Warren Burger

Here is someone who probably has a good idea about constitutional law
who apparently thinks the RKBA is a misinterpretation of the Second
Amendment.

Paul.
From: jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray) 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: RE: DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM
Date: 8 Sep 92 12:51:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
Reply-To: jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray) 

Kevin Darcy writes, amongst other things re this subject....

KD>Papers are for lining bird cages. There is no need to review secondary
KD>sources when the primary source, i.e. the Amendment itself, is clear.

I'm not well versed enough to argue the subtleties of this subject in
it's entirety, but it doesn't take any rocket science to see that this
statement is less than accurate....if it were so clear, there wouldn't be so
many on both sides of the question. Some on both sides have equally
impressive constitutional law credentials and can offer up equally impressive
arguments to support their position.

After listening to both sides for some time now, my conclusion is that it is
quite clear that the amendment means just what it says...that I, as one of the
people, can bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed.

Especially when considering the papers and other writings extant at the time
the amendment was penned! I would turn to them before I would the thoughts
of current day scholars some 200 hundred years removed from the day the
exact wording of the amendment was finally agreed to.

In fact, I suggest that the recent actions of the anti-gun folks to "come
out of the closet" and directly attack the second amendment as standing in
the way of their efforts illustrate that they are admitting as much that the
second *does* in fact support the right on an *individual* basis; ie, they
must move to repeal it for their anti-gun agenda to "work".
---
 . OLX 2.2 . Gun Control: America's National Anathema!
      
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: RKBA files
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:30:46 GMT

In article <38FyqB1w165w@quake.sylmar.ca.us> hunter@quake.sylmar.ca.us (James Collins) writes:
>Does anyone have all the rkba files?  All the archive sites i've seen are 
>missing some of the files (like 5-7, 9, and 11 and 12).  Thanks in 
>advance.

I believe they were never written.  If they were, they were not posted here.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Re: A little on self defense...
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 01:57:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.231357.27737@ncsu.edu> padeniso@eos.ncsu.edu (PAUL ANDREW DENISOWSKI) writes:
>	On the self-defense shooting side, the issue boils down (in my
>opinion) to stopping power.  If a large (.45, 9mm or 10mm) round stops
>in the body of an approaching attacker, the kinetic energy should at least
>stop him, if not knock him down.

In this reality, momentum is conserved.  From that, we can compute the
velocity imparted.  "Knock down" doesn't just happen with small arms.
(If it did, shooters would be knocked down; they get even more "kick"
than the target.  Remember powder.)

>	Lastly, I think people should keep in mind that a weapon can
>easily be turned against the defender.  Unless you are skilled in the use
>and esp. the retention of a weapon, it's best not to carry one at all.  The
>last thing you want to do is give your assailant another weapon to attack
>you with.

While weapon retention is worth considering, the only people who
actually lose guns are cops, and they do so because they carry
stupidly.

Even so, if you insist on wrestling with someone for your weapon,
maybe you shouldn't carry one.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 15:49:55 GMT

In article <Bu2G6n.5Fq@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Sep4.144540.14063@icd.ab.com>, by kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead):
>kw> For example, I think that one of the first things mama deer 
>kw> teaches her fawns is to beware of human scent;  the fawns 
>kw> probably don't know why, only that mama always acted like it was 
>kw> something to be avoided.  Similarly, I believe that their fear of 
>kw> gunfire is a learned reaction, for the reasons described above.  
>
>Several posters have commented that some deer appear to be perfectly
>friendly to humans when/where hunting is not allowed, yet nowhere
>to be seen by the close of hunting season.

Can you provide quotes from those articles, Russell? Apparently
I missed them.

In all my fifteen years of hunting and walking in the woods at 
various times of the seasons, I have never met a friendly deer
that would even let me attempt to approach it. What is your
definition of friendly, btw?  Do you mean get within a few feet
of the deer and it not run or even feed it by hand? This is what
I would consider friendly. Once I was able to sneak up on a fawn
on a windy day that was standing in an open field. As soon as it
got sight of me, the fawn took off. I truly do not think that one
will ever find a deer that will allow a human to approach within
a few feet in an area that permits yearly hunt seasons UNLESS the
deer is injured, sick, weakly, or incapacitated in some form or
other. That only happens in petting zoo's, imho. The deer are just
to skittish and wild in the woods too stand for that. Their goal
is too avoid human sight, human scent, and human sound. And they
learn it quick in an area that recieves yearly hunting pressure.


>  Do you think the female
>deer could teach it's infant to make such a critical distinction
>between hunting season and non-hunting season?   Can you think of
>another reason why the friendly deer are nowhere to be found by the
>close of the season?
>
>-- 
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ

Keith

-- 
| Keith M. Boyd  (NCR MCPD Cola.) | Nothing could be finer than huntin' and  |
| 3325 Platt Springs Rd.          |    and fishin' in South Carolina! -Me-   | 
| West Cola., S.C. 29170 |   GO BRAVES!!     | keith.boyd@columbiasc.NCR.COM |
| Vp: 803-791-6419 or 6455    | From uunet: uunet!ncrcom!ncrcae!clodii!keith | 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 03:32:10 GMT

You may notice that a lot of the postings have put up thus far are from
a magazine that is a supplement to a show called Michigan Outdoors and
the host's (Fred Trost) Outdoors Club.  Fred is currently involved in
a court case in which he is being sued by the makers of deer scents.

Seems he did a study on one of his shows in which he distinctly proved
(or at least according to his presentation of the facts) that the
scent manufacturers could possibly obtain enough real deer urine to
support the claims that it is in the product, as the quantities they
produce far out number the amount that could be plausibly obtained
from the quantity of captive deer in the whole country.  (this remains
to be seen until the case is completed)

He did however follow up the broadcast on what he calls teh "Scent Scam"
with another show in which he experimented during the 'rutt' with various
scents.  The two that I recall were aqua velva and human urine.

The deer were not phased by the smell of the after shave like they thought
they would, and were in fact attracted to the human urine.


Anyway, I have a copy of a PeTA pamphlet on "How to Sabatoge a Hunt"
in which urinating is recommended to scare away deer.  I would also
presume that the makers of the movie Doc Hollywood (Micheal J. Fox)
read this same thing, as they added a scene (which had nothing to
do with the rest of the movie and was apparently added to make an
anti-hunting statement in an otherwise good film) in which the
leading lady (who is mad at poaching activity but refers to it as
"hunters") urinates around the blind to "scare" the deer away and
encourages Fox to do the same.

Now, I look at it this way, if noone tells these AR groups, I might
be able to distribute some of these pamphlets just before opening
day (as it would take me a week to save enough urine to mark all
the spots I would like to) that way I can improve my hunting chances
immensly.

Oh, by the way, there were a few other winners in there.  If you
want a good laugh, as PeTA headquarters for a copy of this flier.
(example:  stomp through the hunting area a couple of days before
season - if that worked, the animals would have all run off into
the Pacific 100 years after Columbus got here)

swood

-- 
+========================+    -------_________     +=========================+
| WANTED - DEAD OR ALIVE |    o\ o \     ____|o    |  If you see this lure,  |
|  Creek Chub "Plunker"  |      \___\_-o-    viv   | PLEASE send me email!!! |
+========================+            viv          +=========================+
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Man==animal and dog stuff
Date: 15 Sep 92 05:07:32 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

>>>-     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
>>>-      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
>>>-                           -  Albert Einstein                             -

>myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>>To those on the other side of this debate, the animal
>>exploiters and sadists, just carefully consider Einstein's quote
>>above.  

Dan Sorenson writes:
>	You might do well to consider them yourself before labeling those
>of us on the other side as "exploiters and sadists."  Sure I use animals.
>I don't "exploit" them, as that is an unethical use for ones own profit.

At first I was inclined to agree with you (gasp).  But I looked it up.  To
exploit means to utilize, especially for profit or to use selfishly for
one's own ends.  I think the term has been probably used too often in
describing unethical people and that is why many people take it that way.

So it may, in fact, be true that some exploit animals, but VERY few can
really be termed sadistic......

Rob U, does not experience sexual gratification by being 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: smithm@chiller.ecn.purdue.edu (Matthew Jacob Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: PETA Action Line
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:49:09 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

>+ Wild horses are living symbols of America's strength and spirit. So
>precious are they to the soul of our country that in 1971 the United States
>Government passed an act which gave them protection under federal law. Since
>1971 wild horses have been given no protection at all. They have been shot,
>poisoned, rustled for slaughter from public lands and captured in the tens
>of thousands by a government charged with protecting them. The plight of
>America's horses is real.  Like the buffalo and the wolf before them, wild
>horses are departing the scene.  Your voice is needed to fight those who now
>run our public lands, America's ranchers.  If you would like to help, please
>call the Wild Horse Action line at 1-800-344-4785.
> 

	Well I couldn't stand not commenting on this one. There is no such
thing as "wild" horses here. Only feral ones. The horse is not, and has not
been native to North America for 10K + years. There were ancestral 2 and
3 toed horse in NA, but they became extinct long before any humans were here.
"wild" horses were introduced to NA by the Spaniards between 1500 and 1600.
The were allowed to roam freely and became "wild". The great plains Indians
, namely the Dakotas, Blackfoot, and Souix, never had horses until the mid
to late 1600's. The horse allowed them to more effectively hunt the NA Bison
and their own numbers increased. Their are very few NA predators capable
of taking a horse, perhaps wolves or cougars, but even then not effectively.
Horse can do lots of damage, mainly due to overgrazing. With very few
predators, and lots of damage from overgrazing, these so called wild horses
need to be controlled. I know of only two areas with "wild" horses. One is
an island on the Atlantic coast, and the other is a few isolated populations
in the desert SW. Some of these animals are trapped and sold or given away,
however the demand for horses with an unknown genetic history, and undomesticated temper is not great, so their populations must be controlled. Unlike the
buffalo and wolf before them,the horse should have never been on the scene.
							Matt Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 18:22:03 GMT


Linda Guidry writes:
lg> Let's further agree that Todd Hedenstrom has no right to speak on 
lg> my behalf, and that he doesn't have the authority to determine 
lg> how, why, when, and where I choose to communicate my opinions to 
lg> Ferrell or anybody else.  Todd would be acting responsibly if he 
lg> had decided to withdraw his own opinion from consideration, but 
lg> he wasn't entitled to withdraw mine.  

Todd Hedenstrom writes:
th> Gee, the amazing thing, really astounding actually, is a note I 
th> got in Email from Russell that read nearly verbatim to the above 
th> statement.  Gee, Russell/Linda - I really do like you.  Are you 
th> soulmates, or just another Usenet Colony Creature?  Hell, if 
th> that's the way we wanna play, how many fake people should I whip 
th> up on my end?  And while I'm pickin' at ya, just remember that in 
th> the FIRST paragraph here you alluded to the anarchist nature of 
th> the net, so my only comment could possibly be: Welcome to the 
th> pool.  

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> 1) Would you mind posting the email message that you claim I sent you?
rl>    Be sure to include the date and message-id. 

From article <1992Sep05.024058.18500@refrig.dixie.com>, by todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.):
th> I don't have it any more.  I read it, had a good belly-laugh, and 
th> hit the 'D' key to send it to bit-heaven.  I'm sure you've got a 
th> copy of it somewhere, why don't you post it?  I'm sure this may 
th> come as a shock to you, Russell, but I don't adoringly save each 
th> and every one of your scintillating posts.  

Gee, you remembered this email message well-enough to claim that 
it was nearly identical with the comments made by Linda Guidry, 
yet I don't recall sending you such a message.  Moreover, there 
was no record of any such correspondence in our system logs.  
Whereas the existence of such a message is very much in doubt, the
existence of Linda Guidry would be easy to document, and she stands
by her prior statement that she finds Ferrell's postings to be 
informative and useful.   

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: What Animal Rights people are really saying.
Keywords: animal rights violence 
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:24:55 GMT

Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org> writes:


`A while back, someone posted a list of quotes intended to discredit
`the animal rights movement.  One of the quotes was attributed to Vicki
`Miller, of ARK II, a Toronto based group.  The quote might have given the
`impression that Ms Miller advocates violence.

(stuff deleted)

`Ms Miller's reply, as quoted in the Jan/Feb 1986 issue of _The_Animals'_
`_Agenda_:

(stuff deleted)
`	I believe that this decade will see the first acts of true
`	violence.  Some may be accidental--like a bystander killed
`	in a bomb blast; some will be deliberate--like a vivisector
`	shot in the street.  The violence will confuse and divide us,
`	but it will be a temporary adjustment and then we will learn
`	to live with it.

I left in the portion of the quote that was originally posted (if you wish
look back at the previous post for the full quote) as I believe still
it is all that is necessary to make the point.

She refers to the violence (for which she gave examples including the
deaths of humans both accidental and intentional) as just a temporary
adjustment!!!!  Oh sorry Mr. Jones, you might die as a result of the
Animal Rights movement, but it is just a temporary adjustment the rest
of us will have to learn to live with.

These are people (theoretical or otherwise) she refers to.  And I cannot
picture the unecessary death of a human as a temporary adjustment we will
learn to live with.  And I find the suggestion outragious and criminal
in itself.  If that does not justify it by its lack of concern for it,
then it at least shows she is telling us all to just turn our heads.

Bunk!  I stand by my original post.  The quote was complete enough.

swood
-- 
+========================+    -------_________     +=========================+
| WANTED - DEAD OR ALIVE |    o\ o \     ____|o    |  If you see this lure,  |
|  Creek Chub "Plunker"  |      \___\_-o-    viv   | PLEASE send me email!!! |
+========================+            viv          +=========================+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Re: Iowa Conference
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:57:07 GMT

Mike linan writes:

(Bunch of stuff deleted)

>Not too long ago you and I were engaged in a e-mail debate and you stated
>that your business was not doing so well for the last few years.  I was
>just curious as to how long you have been subscribing to t.p.a.  Perhaps
>if you spent more time managing your business and less time on t.p.a. you
>might find yourself in the black.  Just some friendly advice old pal. :-)



WHAT???!!!  You mean Russell is gainfully employed?  And here I thought he was
an idle student, given the sheer volume of his postings and the time obviously 
expended on them;  hope you aren't doing this from work, Russell.  I post
from work, but I compose my postings on breaks.  If he IS posting from work, I 
can't help thinking that he must be using up an awful of of company-paid time 
time to to pursue his little hobby. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but if not, I 
have one question.  Is this ETHICAL? ;-)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Man==animal and dog stuff
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 02:13:39 GMT

In article <viking.716516825@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>When your interpretation of
>morality makes the laws I, and the majority of Americans, disagree with
>yet must live under, you are a tyrant.

I agree. So that's why I use gentle prodding and reasoning rather than
laws.  But not from the likes of Pat Buchanan and George Bush. You
either have their set of Family Values, or you are not an American.

According to your statement above, if Pat Buchanan, or even George
Bush, becomes president again, they would indeed be tyrants.

Michael MY Hui          myhui@bnr.ca           Ottawa Canada