HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: swatt%mickey@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Policing Ourselves
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:09:46 GMT
Organization: Yale University, Computing & Information Systems
Originator: swatt@mickey.CS.Yale.Edu


In article <18AUG199212372337@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov>, spzkny@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES ZAKANY) writes:
|> Why don't we (gun owners) police ourselves to insure that gun owners are 
|> competent to own and operate such a potentially dangerous device?
   ...

|> 
|> The SCUBA industry polices itself quite effectively.  One must have been 
|> certified as a competent diver before renting/purchasing SCUBA gear.


Actually, I don't believe there are any requirements for purchase of
SCUBA gear.  Most dive shops I've been in (a) won't rent you gear, (b)
won't fill your tanks, and (c) won't take you on a dive unless you can
show one of the major certification cards.  However if you buy your own gear,
have your own compressor, and go out in your own boat, then it becomes
the problem of your own estate to collect from your own insurance
company if you get yourself killed.

However, I agree the sport diving industry is a good example of self-regulation.
20/20 bashing aside, I often use SCUBA certifcation in comparison to
state-run auto and motorcycle certification as an example of how private
voluntary safety training is better than the state-mandated kind.

We live in a credential-crazy world where having a certificate attesting
that you have black hair is more important than having the black hair
to show someone directly.  I've also thought the NRA should do more in
this area.  To be fair, there are several levels of NRA training available,
including a basic home firearm safety course, which comes with a certificate
suitable for framing. What is lacking is a little card for your wallet.
Sounds like a simple change.

If you're a member, why not suggest it?  If you're not, why not join:

	(800) 368-5714
-- 
  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: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: A question on U.S. Constitution
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 01:04:58 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: na

In article <175s38INNf3@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary) writes:
>
>Any law requiring you to give up something, requires "just compensation."
>Making you destroy it yourself is no different from requiring you to
>turn it over to the police, in this regard. (Actually, a recent ruling
>extended "just compensation" to losses from regulation: South Carloina
>had to pay for losses in real estate value caused by their ban on
>beach front construction.)

Didn't the Supreme Court just remand this back to the South Carolina
Supreme Court, instructing them to rule for the State if and only if
they found that the beachfront ban was based on the state's power to
regulate "nuisances"?


-- 
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)
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Clinton and Suicides, injuries, and Vigilantees.
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:32:22 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <5442@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.boeing.com>, simnet@ssc-vax.boeing.com (Mark R Poulson) writes:
> Certainly, elliminating guns will elliminate with gun suicides. However, I
> don't think these guys looked at Japan where handgun availability is nearly
> zero, long gun availability is low, and suicide is very very high (at least
> for adults -- don't know about their teens) and firearms are rarely the chosen
> method. I think the with gun method is very easy (although quite a mess to
> clean up) and if that option goes away, Americans will get smarter and find
> other more reliable suicide methods which will then be published in the
> newspaper for everyone else to learn.

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

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: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: Doonsbury
Organization: The Cat Factory
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 19:35:41 GMT

In article <149570022@hplsla.hp.com> deanp@hplsla.hp.com (Dean Payne) writes:

}Opus, Bill the Cat, and the cockroach are watching a movie in a theater.
			 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
His name is Milquetoast.

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                   Turn the rascals out!
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483     No incumbents in '92!
Santa Monica, CA  90405
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: Time to Fight
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:05:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.212449.26357@cbfsb.cb.att.com> osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com 
(Mr. X) writes:
>	If someone in a mask, or a police uniform for that matter, busts into 
>	my house, they will probably not leave the premises vertically.  I
>	will probably make their wives widows and their kids very unhappy and
>	I will not be glad about that at all, but I will NOT submit to such
>	treatment under any circumstances.  I will shoot whomever I feel I
>	must and I will not miss.  If they cannot or will not do the job in
>	a correct manner, then let them die, one by one.  To hell with them
>	and their miserable, corrupt lives.

Hear, hear! 




Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: ACLU question
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 00:16:30 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting
Distribution: usa

I'm an NRA member and I go way beyond the ACLU in what I consider to
be individual civil liberties. ("Legalize *all* drugs, weapons, sex &
pornography" for starters).
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
---
Given Civil Seizure, from the DEA's point of view, winning the War on
Drugs would be killing the Goose that lays golden eggs.
From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Date: 13 Aug 92 04:57:08 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1992Aug7.214140.29061@news.Hawaii.Edu> lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:
>I think the fallacy is with your arguments.  Some potential suicides would
>resort to some other method if a gun was not available, but some wouldn't.
>If guns were made illegal, that would increase their price, so although some
>criminals would continue to obtain guns, some would decide not to pay the
>increased price, and so fewer would have guns. If a criminal does not carry a
agun, he may still cause death or injury by other means, but it's less likely.
>
>Gun control advocates believe only that the controls will reduce deaths and
>injuries due to guns, not that they will eliminate them.

The problem is that the gun control advocates forget about the 645,000
successful self-defense uses of handgus, etc.  Almost all of these
individuals (except those who choose to disobey a gun ban) would be
disarmed by outlawing guns, and many of those 645,000 self-defenses would
become armed robberies, rapes, and murders; these statistics would far
overpowe the relatively few suicides who change their minds because "I
can't do it with a gun now."  Think about it.

Mike Ruff
U.T. Austin


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: CLINTON NEW TEXT: GUN CONTROL
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 14:41:41 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary) writes:

>In article <1992Aug21.170920.7638@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:

>It would not, however, duplicate the FBI's work: The FBI is not a
>police force. It most closely resembles police plaincloaths men or
>investigators. They investigate crimes but only after the fact, and
>only crimes that exceed the authority of local officials. They do
>_not_ patrol cities, looking for crimes in progress or suspicious
>actions or persons (that is, the FBI doesn't spend it's time looking
>ofer your shoulder to make sure you are a "good" citizen.) 

Apparrently you have never heard of COINTELPRO.

Also, FBI personnel have a long history of committing felonies
to harrass and discredit politically active groups and individuals 
the FBI considered to be "bad".
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
---
Given Civil Seizure, from the DEA's point of view, winning the War on
Drugs would be killing the Goose that lays golden eggs.

The Drug War is a government-sponsored, taxpayer-financed,
full-employment program for psycho/socio-paths, wannabees and
gonnabees.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:55:53 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

aj336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Pat Weber) writes:
>
>From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
>(description of horrifying SWAT terrorism deleted, then adds:)
>
>>In a rational world, I would hope that this sad incident would cause
>>people to reconsider the concept of disarming the citizens while
>>leaving the police armed.  This incident is just one more piece of
>>evidence that the police and the courts simply cannot be trusted to
>>reprimand their own members for abuse of power.  An innocent person
>>was shot to death by police in her own home, and rather than seeking
>>justice and admitting fault, the attorney general and police are
>>closing ranks to protect their own.
>
>I don't get the connection...if the woman had been armed would this
>confrontation end otherwise? Even if she held off the cops, they'd
>get the battering ram and kill her and her kids too. I've said this a
>dozen times - gun ownership does not stop police/govt abuse of its
>citizens.

Forgive my lack of clarity.  In this particular case, the woman would
have been dead even if she had been armed.

My point was a political one: since the enforcement agencies of our
government (the police and the judicial system) cannot be trusted to
discipline their own members, who will protect us from our protectors?

Having an armed population limits the degree to which we can be
oppressed.  It is not a panacea which prevents wrongful death in
all cases, but it *is* likely to prevent some of the worst excesses
of government.

My comments were directed at those people who believe that disarming
everybody except the police is somehow a good idea.

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Stopping Tanks, Redux (Was: Defined: National Police Force)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Aug18.154422.6971@bluemoon.rn.com> <183141@pyramid.pyramid.com
	<xd#n_s_.phil@netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 22:26:50 GMT

In article <xd#n_s_.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

[story deleted]

<   Moral of the story, as ANY tanker will tell you, never ever operate a
<   tank without infantry. Ever. Tanks are the MOST vulnerable things without
<   infantry.

<   What drives off infantry best? Oh, people with long range rifles or
<   mortars do pretty good.

<   During the budgets cuts under the Carter administration, my brother
<   was a Dragon specialist in the USMC. The Dragon was, well,
<   let's just say not the best anti-tank weapon cosnidering what it
<   faced. The USMC, ever pragmatic, and ever sucking hind-teat on
<   Navy appropriations, started teaching the old soap & gasoline\
<   tricks for tank stopping.

	And, as the Marines, former citizens of Budapest, 
	former citizens of Prague, Mujahadeen and others know, 
	the old soap and gasoline tricks do stop tanks. They cost 
	lives in the process....but they do stop tanks.



Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dadams@cray.com (David Adams)
Subject: Re: RYAN for Ohio Sate Representative - 26
Reply-To: dadams@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:31:43 CDT

sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:

|If Clinton wins, I'll have an "impeach Clinton" t-shirt made.

And I'll buy it!


---
--David C. Adams    dadams@cray.com
___________________________________________________________________
       member--Minnesotans for Global Warming.
From: beman@terapin.com (Bemis Jarvis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Date: 13 Aug 92 04:05:26 PST
Organization: BBS

get real Its america and speaking from serving in the shit hole oil war, you
dont like my country go to hell.... other wise serve a few years and find out
that that's what we win wars with.... not talk guns.....
and if you reply to this message make sure you have a leg to stand on not an
opinion......
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:54:37 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) /  1:04 pm  Aug 20, 1992 /
Bullshit.  It IS a valid reason.  Why don't you take your head 
out of your ass, George?

Sigh.  Is summer vacation over already?

Rick.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cjp@megatek.uucp (Chris "Systems Stud" Pikus)
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Organization: Megatek Corporation, San Diego, California
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 02:15:22 GMT

From article <71309@apple.Apple.COM>, by vossron@Apple.COM (Ronald N. Voss):
> 
	[.....]

> Since it's just as easy for a sixteen-year-old to get a gun in London
> as it is in Los Angeles, then the difference in gun homocide rates in
> London and L.A. is clearly cultural.

>>>>  And remember that it's illegal
> to report a gun homocide in Britain (that's why you never hear of one).
> --

	Why? This is very interesting. Do you have sources?
 
> Ron Voss          Apple Computer         I speak only for myself.


-- 
Christopher J. Pikus,        | "Forgive me for not knowing about El Salvador. 
Megatek Corp., San Diego, CA | Like it's not like I'm ever going to go to Spain
INTERNET: cjp@megatek.com    | or anything."	  -- "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: grant@bluemoon.rn.com (Grant DeLorean)
Subject: Re: Paintball anyone?
Organization: Blue Moon
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 16:23:39 GMT

donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:

>Hello,

>I just had an idea and wanted to solicit peoples' reactions to it.

>I was reading a paintball magazine a while back and I was amazed at
>how much its political articles reminded me of firearm magazines.
>It seems like a lot of Safety Nazis are trying to legislate against
>paintball, much like they attempts firearm legislation.

>Anyway, I was wondering whether people think the NRA might be willing
>to take an interest in paintball.  True, it would be additional work
>BUT I imagine it could easily add a LOT of new members to the NRA...

>Comments?

 I used to play paintball, but don't have the time anymore. The NRA
won't touch it with a 10 foot pole though. There will be too much "we
don't want to encourage shooting guns at people" to be said and the
thought "we don't want to be associated with a bunch of people wearing
BDUs weilding wild looking weapons running around in the woods
shooting each other" will run strong in the minds of the admin.
-- 
\   Grant DeLorean  - IHMSA & NRA Life Member -  (grant@bluemoon.rn.com)   /

        Tested on dolphins and assorted helpless furry creatures

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control in the PR of Kalifornia
Date: 18 Aug 92 05:40:37 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <16847BBF.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:

>     Laws regarding licensing and registering of automobile only apply with
>regard to their use on private property.  There are no laws (or very, very
                        ^^^^^^^ 
You meant _public_, right?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: Bill to repeal Second Amendment
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:58:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.201552.21931@linus.mitre.org> m15133@mwvm.mitre.org (Graham K. Glover) writes:
>In article <149570021@hplsla.hp.com>, deanp@hplsla.hp.com (Dean Payne) 
>posted the text of a bill to repeal the Second Amendment.
>
>HE'S NOT JOKING.  According to Frank Wolf's office, VA Representative, 
>10th District, it is currently in the Subcommittee on Civil and 
>Constitutional Rights.  If it passes this subcommittee, it goes to the 
>Committee on the Judiciary, and then to the floor of the House of 
>Representatives.
>
Of course, you realize, a simple _Bill_ cannot repeal the Second
Amendment, since the Second Amendment is part of the Constitution.
The Consitutional Amendment process would have to followed.
From: vossron@Apple.COM (Ronald N. Voss)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Keywords: n
Date: 18 Aug 92 01:31:00 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

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

>>What I don't understand is why its tougher to get a license
>>to drive a car than it is to get a license to use a gun.

>Wrong.  There are 10 people in all of SF who have a license to carry;
>LA has issued on such license since 1970.  There are millions of
>people who have a license to drive in those two areas.

Everone *knows* that the automobile accident rate would go down
if we would just eliminate car and driver licensing.  It's just logical!

>BTW - Since "drug control" can't stop people from getting guns, how
>can gun control stop criminals from getting guns?  What, it isn't
>supposed to do so?  Then what's the point; there's no benefit to
>disarming anyone else.

Furthermore, if everyone would just openly *arm* themselves, then
the gun death rate would drop.  It's just logical!  Making more guns
available to more people simply *equalizes* everyone, where no
one wants to shoot.

Since it's just as easy for a sixteen-year-old to get a gun in London
as it is in Los Angeles, then the difference in gun homocide rates in
London and L.A. is clearly cultural.  And remember that it's illegal
to report a gun homocide in Britain (that's why you never hear of one).
-- 
Ron Voss          Apple Computer         I speak only for myself.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.culture.french
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:37:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.155205.6389@SSD.intel.com>, hays@ssd.intel.com
(Kirk Hays) writes:

> In article <PA142548.239.714228520@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
> (T. Archer) writes:
> 
> |> Dr. Einstein built the atomic bomb with the hope of ending war.  At the 
> |> time, he expected the bomb to be placed under the control of a multi-
> |> national organization and used as a deterrant.
> |> 
> |> He was a porr student of human nature, but you cannot question his motives, 
> |> as they are clearly documented.  See any biography.
> 
> Yikes! Revisionist history.
> 
> Einstein provided the basic theory that was later used to discover the principles
> which were used to build the atomic bomb.  He *was not* directly involved in the
> effort, so he cannot be said to have "built the bomb" in the same sense as, say,
> Fermi could be.

Thanks Kirk, I glad someone noticed...

You don't want to forget our other friends, Edward Teller, Richard Feynman,
et al.  Edward Teller is also considered to be the "Father of the H-bomb".

And, of course, without P.A.M. Dirac, we might not have Quantum Mehanics.

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: Guns, and the necessity to trust our governement.
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 03:59:42 GMT

starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (aaron greenwood) writes:

>In article <26720@life.ai.mit.edu> benjamin@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Benjamin Renaud) writes:

>#Well, the thing is you see, guns will -never- help you against a
>#government. The day there is a coup d'etat in the US (which will have
>#the support of the army, because it needs it),

>#n ** you will look rather silly waving you little colt at a BIG TANK !!**

A more likely scenario would be, concealed behind cover and aiming
(not waving) a hunting rifle at an unsuspecting tank commander sitting
with his head in the air.  Somehow this doesn't seem quite so silly.

>Agian would the miltiary turn on their own people?  Unless it was a local
>riot or an isolated action by political far right or far left then I say
>they will not have the will.  Look at Russia last year.  Their army did
>not have the will to stand up to a united people.

I think the lesson from Russia was rather that the army itself was
not united.  Whether the armed forces would, or could, have opposed
the people was not tested, because the armed forces were themselves
split.  That would be likely to happen in most western countries.
Assuming that the armed forces split roughly evenly, armed civilians
opposing the coup would tip the balance, perhaps sufficiently to
prevent any fighting.

Geoff Miller (g-miller@adfa.oz.au) | "The first duty of power is to perpetuate
Computer Centre                    | itself.  The first duty of free men is to
Australian Defence Force Academy   | resist it."  Mike Resnick

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns