HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Kalifornia Waiting Period (Was: Waiting periods and rights)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Jul27.172655.21544@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<1992Jul27.192636.26135@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:58:00 GMT

<In article <1992Jul27.192636.26135@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz) writes:
<   In article <1992Jul27.172655.21544@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell) writes:
<   >I think it's useful to differentiate those who wish a short waiting
<   >period for "cooling-off" or whatever else from a bona fide crackpot
<   >who happen to edit a small-town newspaper.

	San Jose isn't a small town, it is bigger than San Francisco.
	The San Jose Mercury News is more influential, in Kalifornia,
	than many newspapers from Frisco.

	The SJMN editorials are often found in other newspapers,
	as "guest commentary", thus magnifying its' influence.

	Yes, a 70 year waiting period is a crackpot scheme.
	So was the Roberti-Roos bill, which became law a
	couple of years ago in Kalifornia.
 
<>Get real.  Nobody important has ever really proposed waiting periods
<>this long.  It's like quoting the Klan on civil rights and saying,

<  Well, the People's Republic of California started out with a
<   Brady Bill-like 7 day waiting period.  When it did absolutely
<   nothing to stop crime (surprise, surprise), they lengthened
<   the wait to 15 days.  

	The record is clearer than that. Kalifornia was one
	of the first, if not THE first, States to pass such
	a "waiting period". It was originally a 24 hour
	"cooling off" period, which was lengthened to 48 hours
	after a couple of years...because it wasn't working.

	Subsequently, the "cooling off" period has been
	expanded to 3 days, then to 5 days, then (under
	Governor Reagan) to 7 days and now to 15 days.


	I'd say that there is a very clear track record
	of expansion of the so-called "cooling off period";
	bear in mind that it now applies to ALL firearms
	in the State, including personal transfers (which
	also must route through a licensed dealer). 

	Oh, and how has it worked? Gee, why not ask
	the San Jose Mercury News?

<The argument that some slimeball politico
<   may try to pass warm-fuzzy-feel-good legislation extending
<   this wait to 30 days has merit.  

	I believe that an expansion to 30 days was proposed
	but failed in either committee or the Assembly,
	however I cannot say for sure.

	One of the California posters should know. If 
	Andy Freeman isn't up to his ears in thesis he
	might be able to comment on this.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jca@crash.cts.com (John C. Archambeau)
Subject: Re: LA Police Chief gets CCWP
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 03:02:02 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.003710.29118@crash.cts.com> lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes:
>In <1992Jul30.221613.24046@crash.cts.com> dbarber@pnet01.cts.com (David C. Barber) writes:
>>The new head of the LA police department (Willie Williams) has requested, and
>>received, a CCW permit since he travels in dangerous parts of town, has a high
>>profile, and is not yet accredited in California as a law enforcement officer
>>(exempt from CCW regulation).

I don't know the process of accredation, but I do know that he is
already sworn in and performing his duties as Chief of LAPD.

>>The review board, who has issued *only* this one permit in the last 25 (or so)
>>years, insists that "we consider each case on its merits."
>
>An interesting subnote: The report of this that I heard on the radio 
>*included* a remark by someone (too far away from radio to hear) to the
>effect of "this process should be open to every member of the public."
>
>Does anybody know who said this?  Was it Williams?

The new Chief of LAPD may have gotten a CCW permit because of his
position with LAPD, but keep in mind that regardless of his position
with LAPD, it's the LA County Sheriff's Department Licensing Division
that (does not) issue these permits.
--

     // JCA

 /*
 ** ARPA    : jadpc!thewall!jca@nosc.mil | 13 + 1 = 228... 
 ** INTERNET: jca@thewall.cts.com        |
 **           jca@thewall.uucp           |           SIG-Sauer P228...
 ** UUCP    : nosc!jadpc!thewall!jca     |
 */
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:18201 soc.women:14241
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.women
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for guns and domestic violence
Date: 29 Jul 1992 00:00:34 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <1992Jul28.121332.57554@cc.usu.edu> slzm9@cc.usu.edu writes:
>
>   The NRA seeks to keep the AK-47 assault rifle legal to the public.

Do you have this information from the NRA, or from someone (or org.)
hostile to the NRA?

It might help if you verified your facts before spouting off.

Sorry if that's blunt.

Do you know what an assault rifle is?  It is a medium-caliber
light rifle with selective-fire ability.  This means that you can
choose between full- and semi-auto operation.

Full-auto firearms have been stringently controlled in the U.S. since
1934.  The version of the AK-47 you're talking about isn't the
full-auto version (which means it isn't even an assault rifle,
according to the technical definition.)

>That is enough for me to know they are misguided. Noone needs an
>automatic weapon with that kind of firepower for self defense. 

Only 3 legally-owned full-auto weapons have been used in crimes in
the U.S. since 1934, btw. s far as I've been able to determine, the
NRA does not advocate the free, unrestricted distribution of full-
auto firearms.  I've checked.  From the NRA itself (novel idea, huh,
going to the source?).

>Gang members however find it an excellent weapon for turf wars.

Do you know this to be a fact, or are you again spouting unverified
statements by someone else with an axe to grind?

According to LAPD, LA Country Sheriff, and FBI information, so-called
assault rifles are underrepresented in criminal usage compared to their
relative numbers of possession: About 3% of rifles owned in CA are
so-called assault rifles, their appearance in criminal usage in CA is
between 1.5% and 2%, depending on the source.  (I would have to check
my sources (at home), but I believe that there have been no more than
two or three instances in LA of full-auto use, outside of the movies.)

>Peace, but not without justice,

Seems reasonable...

>> My opinions are my own.

An *informed* opinion is of some utility.

Oh, btw, I am not and never have been a member of the NRA.  I *do*,
however, know how to find verifiable sources of information.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: chuckh@apex.com (Chuck Huffington)
Subject: Re: weapon identification
Organization: Apex Computer Company
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 21:57:27 GMT

In article <Jul.28.10.47.24.1992.1348@kinks.rutgers.edu> fjohnson@kinks.rutgers.edu (Floyd Johnson) writes:
>Do any of you know the make and caliber of a weapon called the "Street
>Sweeper". All I can surmise is that it's an automatic
>"intermediate"-somewhere in size between a pistol and a rifle.

It's a semiautomatic shotgun.  Drum fed I believe.  Probably 12 gauge.
From: davebe@vicenza.EBay.Sun.COM (David Beattie)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 25 Jul 1992 00:26:39 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: davebe@vicenza.EBay.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: vicenza.ebay.sun.com

In article 4455@advtech.uswest.com, steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:

>Waiting periods for purchasing firearms can help spot those with criminal
>records or mental problems, people I hope you agree shouldn't have guns. 

	Excuse me, but waiting periods does NOT equal background checks.  The
only time *needed* (read necessary) for a background check is a few minutes (unless
there's a problem with the computer).  How do "waiting periods for purchasing ... help spot those with criminal records or mental problems" if no background check is performed?

>Anybody that is so in a hurry to get a gun that they can't wait seven 
>goddam days is the EXACT person you don't want buying a gun immediately.

	It seems that you are saying that hundreds and thousands of law-abiding L.A.
residents are "the EXACT person you don't want buying a gun immediately".  I see
nothing wrong with the *any* law-abiding citizen getting the product that they pay
for on the same day that they pay for it.

>Forcing a woman to wait a "mere" 24 hours to get an abortion makes zero
>sense.  It's just something you control freaks are into.  She has done no
>wrong and is doing no wrong.  Who knows better than she if she wants an
>abortion?  Or gall bladder surgery?  Or a cap on her tooth?

	This "control freak" that you rave about is you.  The person you are
responding to was trying to open your eyes to the fact that waiting periods are
waiting periods, no matter *which* right you are trying to put down.  This "woman"
that you are talking about could be the same "woman" in L.A. that couldn't buy a
handgun to defend herself when the rioting started.

>Maybe you could clarify this left-field comparison of yours.

	Hopefully, I have.  Let me know if I need to clarify my statements.


---
   davebe@vicenza.ebay.sun.com       or       David.Beattie@Ebay.Sun.Com
                   EBay!David.Beattie@Sun.COM (works for most)
     Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT out to get me!

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Virginia Firearms Investigative Unit
Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 03:00:10 GMT

  I just have trouble understanding how the police could possibly
avoid trying to trace guns confiscated from criminals.  If they
find these in NYC, find that they were originally sold in VA -
why wouldn't they talk to the original VA purchasers and try to 
find out where the guns went from there?  The excuse "It's hopeless
because of strawmen." just sounds much too feeble to me.  If the
problem is that they just don't try, then I can't imagine any new
law working either.

--henry schaffer
From: jrk@information-systems.east-anglia.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: BIG GUNS AND LITTLE REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS...
Date: 28 Jul 92 12:22:38 GMT

blosser_cy@lrc.edu writes:
>Man is inherently wicked and prone to sudden acts of random violence against
>his neighbor

blosser_cy@lrc.edu writes:
>If we all discarded our guns & got rid of all our bombs
>and disposed of every stupid weapon we own we'd get along *much* better with
>each other. Perhaps we'd even have peace, love & happiness around the world.

Chris, why has your head not exploded?  I mean, doesn't the universe have
some sort of prohibition against blatantly irreconcilable ideas occupying
the same skull?

--
Richard Kennaway     SYS, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Internet:  jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk               uucp:  ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: buy-back
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:31:44 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.162405.10969@auto-trol.com> stedee@auto-trol.com (Steve Deemer) writes:

>In article <archer.141@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul22.215727.11458@microsoft.com> alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:
>>
>>>A gun buy-back program is being planned for the Seattle area.  It
>>>is sponsored privately by an organization called "Stop the Violence",
>>>which intends to collect $100,000 in private donations to buy back
>>>guns at $50 each during the month of September.
>>
>>Good.  Now, everybody anywhere NEAR the Seattle area, grab hold of every non-
>>functional piece of junk you can find and sell it back to them to soak up 
>>their funds.  But lock up your own hardware.  These sorts of buy backs tend 
>>to encourage burglary as people try and steal guns to turn in, since they 
>>have full amnesty.
>>-=-=-

>Never heard of people -stealing- guns for buyback programs, but last
>time they tried this in Denver, the buyback people paid $100 apiece for
>squirt guns and cap pistols, as well as for actual firearms that
>retailed for $30-$40 new.

>Steve Deemer

Yep.  It's a fairly regular occurance.  When a "no questions asked" buy back 
go into effect, burglaries go up, because you have a 100% safe "fence" to   
buy your booty.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Cosmoline
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:30:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T


|>>(preferably not 4473'ed at all) and an adequate supply of cosmoline
|>                                                           ^^^^^^^^^
|>Wazzat?

|Cosmoline - a trademark for petrolatum of a heavy grade, used esp. as
|a protective coating for firearms, metals, etc. [from Webster's New
|World Dictionary, 2nd College Ed.]

|Informally, its the green goo you put on firearms when they'll be
|in *very* long term storage - the stuff is extremely moisture-resistant.

If my recollection is correct, American Rifleman several years ago
had an article (about?) that stated that Cosmoline was originally a
HAIR CARE PRODUCT... can you imagine putting that gunk DELIBERATELY
in your hair? Yech!

[I presume the "Cosm" is from "Cosmetic?"]
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.women
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: The AvtoMat Kalishnakov Model Number 47
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:42:40 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.170020.24421@cbfsb.cb.att.com> osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) writes:

>In article <archer.208@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul28.121332.57554@cc.usu.edu> slzm9@cc.usu.edu writes:
>>
>>>   The NRA seeks to keep the AK-47 assault rifle legal to the public.
>>>That is enough for me to know they are misguided. 

>       You apparently know little enough about both arms and the NRA
>       to show that you are the one who is misguided.  Try educating
>       yourself before making such statements.  All you succeed in 
>       doing is making yourself look ignorant and foolish, pardon me.
>>
>>1) The Avtomat Kalishnakov 47 is not "legal to the public."  The Kalishnakov 
>>is a Class-III fully automatic assault weapon and has not been legal to sell 
>>to private citizens in the United States since 1986, when Ronald Reagan 
>                                               ^^^^

>       Full auto weapons have not been available to the general public
>       since 1934.  Let us not give the gun grabbing ignorami any extra
>       justification by allowing them to label us as fellow ignorami.

I was referring to new sales.  You are, of course, correct.  Class-II's have 
been restriced since NFA '34.  I was not specfic enough.

-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
From: dcwst8+@pitt.edu (David C Winters)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Bush and his Crime Bill
Date: 25 Jul 92 14:24:57 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Jul24.232009.22133@iitmax.iit.edu> draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn) writes:
>If Bush is willing to trade away our gun rights for a broader death
>penalty and a weaker exclusionary rule, I'd certainly be willing to
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^
Would someone mind doing me the favor of posting an explanation of what
the "exclusionary rule" is, what it does, and the reasons for and
against weakening it?

Thanks so muchly,

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

          Illigitimi non carborundum.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: satwant@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (satwant.singh)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:59:07 GMT

In his article langston@convex.COM (Kevin Langston) writes:
>    Do you also have trouble parsing the following:
>
>    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free
>    state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be 
>    infringed."
>
Good comparable sentence!
I have a slightly better one:

	"A well-educated bureaucracy, being necessary to the development
	of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books
	shall not be infringed."

regards,

satwant

Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:17901 alt.politics.clinton:667 soc.women:14067
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton,soc.women
Subject: Re: Waiting periods for guns and domestic violence
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:12:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Jul24.050335.6275@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>In article <1493@cogsci.ucsd.EDU> king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:
>>I never said a no-firearms fight would be fair, but I would suggest
>>that it is somewhat less likely to end with somebody being dead.  You
>>could dispute that point, I suppose.
>
>This sounds like the reasoning of Rev. Brockway, of the United
>Methodist Church (May, 1977 _ENGAGE-SOCIAL ACTION FORUM_), who thinks
>that if an attacker is only going to rape (yes, I know your scenarios
>are not about rape but I think the reasoning has similarities), then it
>is the victim's duty to submit rather than do anything that might
>imperil her rapist's life.
>

Wow! Now I understand the Democratic platform. We are all supposed
to submit to rape! Thanks for the enlightenment, Phil. I will 
personally whip out my 9mm and take the sucker out for the count!

-- 
Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk  "The Demos have to go!"   (408) 253 4541 fax

"The first thing you have to do is disarm the people. A disarmed
public can't fight back" -Adolf Hitler

It is interesting that the so called enlightened Democrats
seem to espouse the same tactics of their buddy Hitler:
disarm the public, and put a Goebbels type guy in place
to control the propaganda: Stephanopolous.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Does Sarah Brady own a gun or not.
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 04:37:18 GMT

In article <4966@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D.
Tavares) writes:

|>In article <1992Jul20.034600.19620@athena.mit.edu>,
|>sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
|>> In article <d-cmdnn.damiel@netcom.com> damiel@netcom.com (Paul
|>Theodoropoulos) writes:
|>> >i've seen allusions to the effect that Sarah Brady owns/packs/has
|>a
|>> >concealed carry permit for a handgun.
|>> >what i'd like to know is if there is any truth to it - any
|>*verifiable*
|>> >truth.
|>
|>> So, I hunted through the archives and came up with the following.
|>> 
|>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
|>> I first found a tidbit from TOM@ches.cs.vims.edu,
|>> dated 22 May 92.
|>
|>Right, so this TOM character says she does, but not how he found out
|>or
|>what proof he has, if any.
|>
|>> This wasn't much to go on, so I looked further.
|>> 
|>> I hit the JACKPOT.
|>
|>Argh!  It's a cuspidor filled with twice-fired brass.
|>
|>> PEOPLES RIGHTS ORGANIZATION
|>> SARAH BRADY:  PRO-GUN & ANTI-RIGHTS...
|>
|>Read this article again.  NOWHERE does it say that Sarah Brady owns
|>a gun.  It quotes her as saying that she "enjoys firing them" (quite
|>a
|>different thing) and "favors right to carry laws" (you can take that
|>either way), and then makes the editorial assertion that "she thinks 
|>every member of the ruling elite and all of their agents should carry
|>one" (nowhere does she SAY anything like this).
|>
|>> I think that's pretty much the last word on the subject. . . .
|>
|>Do some critical thinking, please.

And let us not forget that Denis@bluemoon has never responded to any of
the numerous challenges to his veracity. Remember that PRO are the
peopel who brought you the CON-CON con and the NEWSTATES CONSTITUTION.
And then they were found to have been lying, their claim of $20 million
of federal money turned out to be untrue, all they had was a suggestion
for revision of the US constitution from an academic conducting a
comparative review.

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: Chafee Handgun Ban Bill Introduced
Organization: Twilight Zone
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 20:03:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.204018.18180@ns.network.com> greg@gogol.network.com (Greg Mclachlan) writes:
>
>*
>Senator John Chafee (R-RI) has introduced a bill (S. 2913) that 
>would "prohibit the manufacture, importation, exportation, sale
>purchase, transfer, receipt, possession or transportation of
>handguns and handgun ammunition..."

	Note that this say HANDGUNS and ammo...
>
>The anti-gun lobby has finally revealed its real agenda-a ban on
>all firearms in the hands of private citizens.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>ALL FIREARMS IN THE HANDS OF LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS ILLEGAL?
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	Please forgive my possible dull wittedness, but how do you arrive
	at the conclusion of a ban on ALL firearms when it specifies
	handguns?  Have you omitted some vital portion of text?

	No flame here, I'd just like to clear that point up a bit.

	-Andy V.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Brit Guns, et al
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:13:08 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.002050.16717@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:


>|><and is't next to impossible for a
>|><   civilian (if not impossible) to obtain a gun.  
>|>
>|>     This is false; it is possible for a civilian to obtain 
>|>     a gun. There is a capricious licensing process.

>Shotgun licences are quite easy to get provided you have a reasonable
>explanation of what you are going to use it for. The rule for handguns
>is much tougher, basicaly forget it unless you are a member of a gun
>club.

This is the theory.  The *practice* is that the government doesn't think 
that private citizens have any business owning guns, and denies permits to 
the majority of applicants who do not have money or political pull.

>We don't like the idea of loonies with guns. Greg McLaren would not be
>in with a chance of getting a gun in the UK.

Neither to we.  So?

>|>     Note that criminals who use guns rarely have licences.

>|>     Mexican gun laws are STRICTER than British gun laws, yet
>|>     by any measure you choose, crime in the Republic of Mexico
>|>     is worse than in the U.S.
>|>
>|>     If gun laws make all the difference, why isn't Mexico 
>|>     safer than the U.S.?

>Because with guns freely circulating north of the border ther is little
>chance of gun control laws working?

This is a canard.  Canada has far less crime than the US, IN SPITE of the 
large number of guns freely circulating SOUTH of her boarder.  The fact is 
that the Mexican culture is more violent than ours, and the Canadian culture 
is less so.  The amount of gun control is irrelivant.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-