HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cecchini@acsu.buffalo.edu (Julie A Cecchini)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Privileges and Rights. (was: Re: GORE...)
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:26:45 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <lairdb.719194653@crash.cts.com> lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes:
>In <Bw4ous.45p@acsu.buffalo.edu> cecchini@acsu.buffalo.edu (Julie A Cecchini) writes:
>
>>>Ah, not at all.  This is what the agreement between me and the government
>>>(the Constitution) is all about: an agreement about how I may conduct
>>>myself on the property-of-all-citizens which is administerd by the gov't.
>
>>Wrong.  It is NOT an agreement about how you may conduct yourself on
>>the property-of-all-citizens, it isn agreement between you and the government
>>about how THE GOVERNMENT may conduct itself!
>
>>Read the thing comprehensively sometime.
>
>Read the whole thread sometime.  I never said it was an agreement with 
>other citizens.  Going back an exchange or two, I likened it to the charter
>for a property management firm (i.e. the government.)  We (citizens)
>enter into a contractual relationship (if you will) with the entity 
>"government".  This "government" is a non-profit organization whose business
>it is to manage the property-of-all-citizens according to the rules
>set forth.  Many portions of the contract restrict what the employee
>(government) my do in the pursuit of this goal.  

This is where you're wrong throughout the entire thread.  The entire
contract, by intent, disallows ALL actions of the government, allowing
only those explicitly stated within the contract, with an amendment
process to grant the government MORE powers if absolutely necessary,
NOT to further restrict the government.  Understand now?

>Some portions permit
>the government (presumably acting in the interests of the employers) to
>make rules regarding the behaviour of people making use of the property
>that it has been engaged to manage.  

>My earlier paragraph was indeed badly put, although in the context of the
>previous exchanges it's not quite as bad.  Perhaps I should have said "the 
>Constitution and the body of laws".  The Constitution is the basic charter
>setting forth the duties and powers of the management firm, the body of 
>laws are the rules it has made (with the consent of the citizens) to
>carry out those duties.  Clearer on what I was getting at?

I understood what you were getting at...and the basic premise is
wrong.  Perhaps I should have spoke up sooner instead of waiting
until I could read no more without tears of frustration.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: The true defense of gun ownership
Keywords: Guns,Constitution,Militia
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:00:56 GMT

In <Bw0CBq.5vH@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:

>First let me tell you that I am a Libertarian and no great lover of
>Government interference in the private lives of citizens. However...

>However, I am distressed by the willful misunderstanding of the second
>ammendment to the U.S. Constitution. This ammendment is about militias,
>not private gun ownership.

Oh, really? Funny but it reads to me that; 1) people [as in 'we the
people'] have a right to keep and bear arms, 2) the government shall
not infringe that right, and 3) on good reason for not infringing
that right is the need for a militia to protect the state [state then
being all 13 (ex) colonies].

Now, I don't claim to be a professor of English grammar, but I do
recall seeing an analysis of the 2nd here on t.p.g that was done
by a reputable and acknowledged scholar. He essentially said the
same thing that I did above. If someone has that article on file
it might help to re-post it in order to help our less literate
brethren.

>If you pro-gun guys want to invoke the U.S. Constitution, then use the
>ninth ammendment. Since the right to life is not ennumerated, but is
>assumed, then the right to life can not be disparaged. Therefore, any
>means used to defend one's life cannot be prohiibited. This is logical and
>much more reasonable. From this point of view, one can defend having a
>handgun in the house, and still regulate against keeping an A-Bomb or a
>Stinger Missile in our basement.

>Conan the Libertarian rjk@world.std.com
>"If you can't love the Constitution, at least hate the Government"

REB.
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Perot's Running Mate
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 17:55:26 GMT

In article <7125@transfer.stratus.com>
cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

>
>In article <1992Oct9.165141.6916@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>, rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (orris the Cat) writes:
>>
>> USA Today earlier this week had an interview with Perot's running
>> mate. He said that "automatic weapons" were becoming a problem and
>> that he could see some gun control... chalk another victim up to
>> the news media onslaught...
>
>Who the hell IS Perot's running mate?

     Adm. James Stockdale I think is who he's ended up with.  Stockdale
was a "temporary" VP for a while as a placeholder on the ballot, and
either they decided to make him permanent of Perot couldn't find anybody
else.

>The last news I heard on this was during the time Perot had dropped
>out of the race.  He told a reporter that he had two people in mind
>as VP.  One of these people was totally caught by surprise when he
>read the interview in the paper, because it was the first he'd heard
>of it.  The other vice-presidential prospect had been dead for years.

     Kinda figures...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Freaks And Self-Defense
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:12:05 GMT
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.

In article <1bja6gINNsvr@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cc697@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(Eric Oppen) writes:
>>Wasn't there a case recently where some freak started shooting in a 
>>restaurant, and someone shot back, preventing another mass execution
>>(the type that the media loves)?
>
>I believe that it was in Anniston, Alabama.  I don't know the details, but
>apparently several people in the restaurant were legally carrying firearms,
>and the nut died the death all such nuts should die.

Get the files:

archive.cis.ohio.state.edu:/pub/firearms/politics/rkba/anniston

It's a copy of some newspaper accounts.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
From: cecchini@acsu.buffalo.edu (Julie A Cecchini)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:41:05 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <84260@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>
>-----
>Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.
>
>    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
>
>Guns don't kill people.  Guns make it easier for people to kill people.

I know you!  You're the plant sent to boeing from the Treasury Department.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Women's Empowerment Seminar
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:56:58 GMT

I found this in talk.rape.  Maybe some of the CO tpg readers will go
and tell us what NOW thinks self-protection as a lifestyle consists of.

>Seminar Announcement:
>
>	Womens Empowerment: Coping in the Age of Tailhook
>	  Develop Self-Protection as a Lifestyle
>
>sponsored by Colorado NOW
>
>Issues:
>	Sexual Harassment
>	Physical Self-Protection
>	Gender Communications
>
>Location:
>	First Baptist Church
>	14th & Grant
>	Denver,CO
>
>Time:
>	9 AM - 1:30 PM
>	Saturday, Oct.,17
>
>Cost:
>	Advanced registration:  (by Oct.14)
>			Single: $40.00
>		With a Friend : $70.00 for 2
>
>	At the door: $50.00
>
>Advanced Registration:
>	Name, Phone number, and Check to:
>					Colorado NOW
>					1552 Pennsylvania St.
>					Denver, CO
>					80203
>	Check payable to Colorado NOW
>
>Proceeds go to EPOCOLORADO to defeat Amendment 2

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing army?
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:13:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.174914.17810@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

   In article <84952@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:

   >If you believe that your freedom of speech is unregulated, then go
   >shout "Fire!" in a crowded auditorium and explain it to the judge.

   No one would, or could, arrest me for _planning_ to do so. Only
   after I have comitted an act that endangers others would I be
   arrested.

Unfortunately, this is not true.  The crime is called "conspiracy" in
most states, and is a felony.  In some states, it is a felony to
conspire to commit a misdemenor.

However, you could not be arrested for having the means to yell
"fire", nor for having the means to print libel.  I believe that this
is the parallel to banning and/or controlling access to guns.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Privileges and Rights. (was: Re: GORE...)
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:17:33 GMT
Organization: "Well, a head on top, an arm on each side, two legs...."

In <Bw4ous.45p@acsu.buffalo.edu> cecchini@acsu.buffalo.edu (Julie A Cecchini) writes:

>>Ah, not at all.  This is what the agreement between me and the government
>>(the Constitution) is all about: an agreement about how I may conduct
>>myself on the property-of-all-citizens which is administerd by the gov't.

>Wrong.  It is NOT an agreement about how you may conduct yourself on
>the property-of-all-citizens, it isn agreement between you and the government
>about how THE GOVERNMENT may conduct itself!

>Read the thing comprehensively sometime.

Read the whole thread sometime.  I never said it was an agreement with 
other citizens.  Going back an exchange or two, I likened it to the charter
for a property management firm (i.e. the government.)  We (citizens)
enter into a contractual relationship (if you will) with the entity 
"government".  This "government" is a non-profit organization whose business
it is to manage the property-of-all-citizens according to the rules
set forth.  Many portions of the contract restrict what the employee
(government) my do in the pursuit of this goal.  Some portions permit
the government (presumably acting in the interests of the employers) to
make rules regarding the behaviour of people making use of the property
that it has been engaged to manage.  

My earlier paragraph was indeed badly put, although in the context of the
previous exchanges it's not quite as bad.  Perhaps I should have said "the 
Constitution and the body of laws".  The Constitution is the basic charter
setting forth the duties and powers of the management firm, the body of 
laws are the rules it has made (with the consent of the citizens) to
carry out those duties.  Clearer on what I was getting at?



-- 
Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
Hi!  I'm a shareware signature!  Send $5 if you use me, send $10 for manual!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: Privileges and Rights. (was: Re: GORE...)
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:54:00 GMT

In <1992Oct4.220633.11148@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>In article <lairdb.717882048@crash>, lairdb@crash.cts.com
>(Laird P. Broadfield) writes:
>> In <db+p#cq@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>> >If you believe the 9th and 10th amendments should still be held valid 
>> >until formally repealed (as opposed to being defacto repealed. I believe
>> >former Chief Fascist Burger called them "dog meat."), then you HAVE to 
>> >believe that the RIGHT to operate a vehicle, not having been delegated
>> >to the states or the US government, belongs to the people.  The basis

>In fact, some of the State Constitutions have clauses similar to the
>9th and 10th.

>> >of the Constitution is it grants the federal government certain, very 
>> >well defined powers and reserves ALL OTHERS INCLUDING those not yet
>> >thought of for the individual citizens.
>> 
>> Hmmm.  Okay, again, I'll agree with you.  Glad to do so, in fact.  
>> I would "defend to the death" your right to operate a vehicle on your
>> own, wholly owned property.  However (I'm not entirely comfortable
>> with this argument, but it follows) as an owner in joint tenancy
>> (with you, and every other citizen) I (and my fellow citizens) have
>> chosen to make rules about what you may do on *our* property.  I

>The question is, did *we* do it, or did a group of bureaucrats do it?
>Are these rules the _Will_of_the_People?  Or has the State assumed
>this power, above and beyond the will of the people?

If you'll pardon me quoting myself from another article:

$lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes:
$>John wrote: 
$>Judging by how many people ignore traffic laws, the entity called government
$>is not very responsive to the will of the people.  So what else is new?
$
$Nonsense.  The entity called government has done exactly what the people
$told it to do.  The fact that most of them are too lazy to vote their
$share, too irresponsible to consider the issues involved, and so forth,
$is not material.  OTOH, the fact that the government thus elected has
$noticed this, and begun to abuse this lack of oversight bringing us
$closer and closer to a fascist/socialist state de facto under a 
$capitalist de jure system, just brings us individual citizens
$closer to either fleeing (where to?) or to the second and third boxes.


-- 
Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
Hi!  I'm a shareware signature!  Send $5 if you use me, send $10 for manual!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: grant@bluemoon.rn.com (Grant DeLorean)
Subject: Re: Candidate ratings on RKBA
Organization: Blue Moon
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 03:18:15 GMT

lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:

>In article <1al4liINNq9s@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb063@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher J. Crobaugh) writes:
>>Here is a composite rating of the candidates for OHIO offices...

>Could you give us the algorithm used to come up with this rating, please ?
>I'm a bit suprised that you'd rate John Kasich, my US representative,
>as an F; at worse I'd rate him a B.  His opponent, Fitarski, is rated

 Kasich used to be more highly rated, but that vote on the hunting
bill hurt him...
-- 
\   Grant DeLorean  - IHMSA & NRA Life Member -  (grant@bluemoon.use.com)   /

   Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.  -- Euripides
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The true defense of gun ownership
Keywords: Guns,Constitution,Militia
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:34:31 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <Bw1KI0.Bv6@rice.edu> kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack) writes:
>In article <Bw0CBq.5vH@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com writes:
>> However, I am distressed by the willful misunderstanding of the second
>> ammendment to the U.S. Constitution. This ammendment is about militias,
>> not private gun ownership.
>
>	Pardon me, but who in tarnation do you think makes up the  
>   militia?

The amendment says "A well-regulated militia ..."
		      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The numbskull who buys a gun and leaves it around, fully loaded, where his
3-year-old grandson can find it and kill his 2-year-old brother with it, is
*not* part of a well-regulated militia.  Nor is a bunch of good ol' boys who
drive around in a pickup every other weekend drinking beer and shooting at
deer out of the pickup's windows a well-regulated militia.  The only legal
well-regulated militia in this country that I know of is the National Guard.
If you all know of other legal well-regulated militias in the U.S. I wish
you'd stop maundering and name a couple.

Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   "I have NOT lost my mind:  it's backed up on tape somewhere."  - Anon.   |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: NRA Should Send Clinton...
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:51:29 GMT

The NRA should send Clinton copies of a few books.

"The Samurai, the Mountie and The Cowboy" by Kopel
"Point Blank" by Kleck
"That Every Man Be Armed" by Halbrook

This would be a small investment considering the possible benefits
accruing if Clinton actually took the trouble to read them.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
[.sig on vacation]
From: mwette@csi.jpl.nasa.gov (Matt Wette)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: NSW homicides
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:58:03 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Originator: mwette@mr-ed


Would someone be willing to update this debate?
I got into the middle of it and would like to "catch up."

My impression is that Tim Lambert proposed a correlation between crime
statistics and gun control in two sets of successive years.  I'm
guessing that Andy Freeman then made the argument was then that these
aren't necessarily correlated (which is true -- any number of other
events could have led to the change).  He then proposed some other
model maybe?

Matt
--
mwette@csi.jpl.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rick@cs.sunysb.edu (Richard Spanbauer)
Subject: Re: NRA Should Send Clinton...
Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 14:06:55 GMT

In article <1764@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.005129.913@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
	
	[text deleted]

>to its efficacy in reducing crime after all this time.  Yet they still
>keep trotting out the same old lines, and resort to deciet, misleading
>statistics, and even outright lies to promote this aim.  IF THEY ARE
>REALLY INTERESTED IN REDUCING CRIME, WHY DO THEY KEEP PUSHING MEASURES
>THAT I BELIEVE THEY KNOW WILL HAVE NO EFFECT ON CRIME?  Its gotta be
>some other reason, which they aren't telling us.

	Easy question - some politicians (democrats, no doubt :-) ) probably
	in fact do believe that removing guns will reduce crime.  More
	likely is that they espouse this point of view because it panders to
	a segment of society that wants to hear just this.  

>One has to remember, many of these power-types are very arrogant, and
>view the public at large a resource to be exploited for their gain and
>comfort.  Does anybody REALLY BELIEVE that Ted Kennedy, for example,
>gives a hot damn about the needs of the common person?!  Any review

	In so far as doing what it takes to continue his employment by	
	government, he has to be interested in the needs of the common man.
	Or, at least the PAC's that represent subsets of the common man.

	I remember a debate which featured Bill Buckley and one of our fine
	democractic congress-critters (?) from NY - the subject was legalization
	of drugs (Buckley for, congress-critter against) in which Buckley
	was heard to say something to the effect of "given your choice, you
	would have government do everything for us".  This sort of elected
	representative is the greatest threat to our rights, ie in the pursuit
	of ensuring we are all fed, housed, cared for, equally well off, and 
	safe, we all end up as caged monkeys with no individual freedoms.  

>pat@rwing.uucp                                  (Pat Myrto),  Seattle, WA

					Rick Spanbauer
					State U of NY/Stony Brook

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: NSW homicides
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:24:32 GMT

In article <LAMBERT.92Oct14034507@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au> lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
> On Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:35:30 GMT, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) said:
>> Lambert's model is for a transition between two stable situations with
>> some "noise".  He uses it to argue that gun control explains the
>> transition.  Yet, he doesn't bother to show whether or not anything
>> else happened at the relevant time, whether or not the situations were
>> in fact stable, and so on.
>
>You call this a "parameter"??  This is a bizarre usage even by your
>standards.

It is a factor that affects the meaning of the fitting.  Lambert
claims that his fitting means something.

>Your claim that I have not shown that the situations were
>stable is false.  The homicide rate was roughly constant in the period
>before gun control and in the period after gun control.

The graphs have shown that it was roughly constant AFTER, but before....

>2. It might be that demographic change caused the decline i.e. a
>decrease in the percentage of young men in the population.  However,
>the demographic change associated with WWI when 40% of the males 18-45
>enlisted, is far far larger than any other change during the period,
>and the homicide rate 1915-18, while lower than the surrounding years
>is still higher than the post gun control rate.

Note the assumption that one young male is as violent as another.

The US military tries to avoid enlisting/drafting certain problems.
Moreover, it claims that it "improves" the people it does accept.  Is
the Australian military any different?

> and a 17th century Andy Freeman might have replied:

Ooh.  I'm slain.  Lambert has produced a caricature AND introduced
the "they laughed at Einstein" argument.

>Pull the other one Andy.  You claim that it could not cause an abrupt
>change because that would require the law to cause existing gun owners
>to decide not to kill with their weapons.  Finding the gaping hole in
>this argument is left as an exercise to the reader.  (Hint: gun
>control did not apply only to new gun purchases.)

Hint: passing a law doesn't necessarily affect controlled weapons.

Lambert would have us believe that people who would kill lined up
outside police stations to turn in their guns.  Or maybe the police
conducted house to house searches.  What?  They relied on voluntary
compliance and hosed violators as they were found OVER TIME.  (Maybe
they did get more vigorous in their searching.  That can have an
effect, but that isn't gun control.)  So much for the step effect
required.

>I provide the data that Andy requested and now he tells us that it is

No, Lambert provided PART of the data requested.

Of course, if Lambert is claiming that my data requests, or his
interpretation of them, are to be considered authoritative....

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns