HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: matwesx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (William E. Sadler)
Subject: Re: Open Carry, Why Not?
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:51:21 GMT

kkirksey@world.std.com (Ken B Kirksey) writes:

>So after discovering that NC was an open carry state, I decided...
> 
>So why don't I carry?  I mean other than the fact that I don't have a good 
>stylish holster. :)
> 
>Here's my question to ya'll:  given that I've the opportunity, can you
>think of any reason why I shouldn't carry?  Many thanks in advance.
Yeah, some real good ones.

Despite the fact that carrying openly is legal, you will in fact cause
quite a 'stir' in the local populace if you start 'packin heat' openly.  In
discussing such options w/ the Winston-Salem police, they allowed that even
though technically legal, you quite likely will be stopped and questioned by
every police officer who notice you, some quite nervously.  It is not a good
idea to make a gun-totin individual real nervous.

Aslo, they intimidated that it would be *real* easy to get run in for the 
slightest offense if you were carrying openly.

Lastly, they flat out said that they would probably arrest you for 'creating
a public disturbance' or some such.  Which you probably would be doing! :)

While I would never advocate breaking of the law, espically on a public forum,
the best option if you are in a situation where you must carry, is to carry, 
and face the music if you ever need your piece.  If you ever find yourself in
a position where you need the gun, and don't have it, you will see to it that 
you are never in that position again.  And if your straits were so dire as to 
suddenly make it obvious that you were carrying, well, then facing 12 is better
than being carried by 6.  Sorry for the old cliche, but that doesn't make it
any less true.


-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 William E. Sadler          |    Internet: matwesx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu
 717 Stephenson Ridge       |            : acmwes@gsusgi2.gsu.edu
 Stone Mountain, GA  30087  |            : 71005.1241@compuserve.com
                            |         CI$: 71005,1241
 (404) 413-1957             | PGP 2.0 Key: Available on upon request
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who didn't.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sjo@cci632.cci.com (Steve Owens)
Subject: Re: the US elections...
Organization: [Computer Consoles, Inc., Rochester, NY
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:57:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.002808.4508@csus.edu> altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.224621.18137@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
>   andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>
>>Of course we're a little sensitive.  We're being hosed.  Nothing good
>>will come of it and we'll be hosed again.  Gun bans, which have been
>>proposed at the national level and implemented at the local level, are
>>the only end-point to that progression.
>
>Only if you allow that the extreme case in any argument will in the end
>predominate. Neither I nor Ashley have proposed a ban, in fact, she just
>bought a gun, so I doubt she would support a ban. She was only bemoaning
>the need in today's society for _needing_ a gun, and I agreed with her. The

	In any society with a reasonable degree of freedom, one has to
take some responsibility for his/her life as well as the lives of others.
This includes protecting that life or lives from the encroachment of those
who would take away that life.  As soon as you hand over that responsibility
to the government, you also give up that freedom, because the government
must then strictly regulate you life in order to insure your safety.
You may be willing to allow the government that kind of control over
your life, but I'd rather take the responsibility.

	As far as needing a gun, there are always alternatives.  You could
chose a different place to live/work/play that is not so violent prone.
Instead of purchasing a gun, you could invest in martial arts training, etc.
However, what if you *wanted* to purchase a gun for collection or sporting
purpose? Even though you, as a responsible citizen, would use it properly 
and were willing to take responsibility for your actions, you couldn't
get a gun because the government banned it simply because a *handful* of 
people used it irresponsibly.  Do you think this is adequate reason?  
I don't, and this is why I'm a bit sensitive about the subject.

>-- 
>Murray M. Altheim      "Ils ont l'orteil de Bouc, & d'un Chevreil l'oreille,
>Instructional Consultant    La corne d'un Chamois, & la face vermeille
>CSU, Sacramento          Comme un rouge Croissant: & dancent toute nuict
>altheimm@csus.edu       Dedans un carrefour, ou pres d'une eau qui bruict."


						Steve


------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Read between the lines                             Steven J Owens @ CCI
 Criticize the words they're selling             (716) 482-5000 Ext 2867
 Think for yourself and feel the walls                 sjo@op632.cci.com
 Become sand beneath your feet." - Queensryche "Anybody Listening?"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: skeeter@skatter.usask.ca
Subject: New concealed carry in Texas...
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:41:57 GMT

I just heard what amounts to a rumor that Texas has "a new law
allowing people to carry concealed handguns" (as I heard it).

Any truth to this?  Could someone respond with details, please?

--
skeeter@skatter.usask.ca			no nifty .sig

The weight of one's wallet is inversly proportional to the size of
one's heart.   -- me 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Subject: Re: Open Carry, Why Not?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 09:49:30 GMT

In article <viking.722154683@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>Seth Adam Eliot <se08+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>>In other words, just because you are allowed legal public carry, doesn't
>>mean that store owners and such need let you on their premises while
>>armed.  I'd imagine that the local bank guard may be disconcerted, not
>>to mention being banned from airport gates
>
>	I sent my Haskall in for some tuning the other day.  Standard UPS
>ground shipping, so I bopped on it with the gun, took it out of the
>plastic shipping box, showed her the empty magazine, cycled the action
>to show it wasn't loaded, let her examine the breech, put it away and
>shipped it off.  No sweat.  Then I noticed that the UPS station in
>Drug Town is also a US Post Office station.
>
>	I hate to think I just committed a federal offense showing the
>UPS clerk that my gun was safe to ship according to their own regs.

The law only effects federal reservations, i.e., federal property.
If this was a private business that was merely a P.O. collection
station then the law does not apply. Both open and concealed carry
or possession of a firearm is prohibited within an airport's
security area, and yes, some business with bar you from their
shops if you are carrying, which is their privilege. These
people should NOT be patronized, carrying or not.

-- 
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only  |
 | Midterm Countdown-Bill and the Congress have to '94 to screw it up |
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Japanese exchange student killed in Louisiana...
Date: 15 Nov 92 22:26:24 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <1992Nov15.134900.22861@ms.uky.edu> miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:
>I think an important part of this particular story is the fact that the
>shooter came out of the safe refuge of his home to shoot an unarmed person.

How safe is your house if there's a bad guy outside setting it
on fire?

-- 
My opinions are my own.
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Japanese exchange student killed in Louisiana...
Date: 16 Nov 92 15:47:23 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <1992Nov15.134900.22861@ms.uky.edu> miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:
>I think an important part of this particular story is the fact that the
>shooter came out of the safe refuge of his home to shoot an unarmed person.
>I can understand being worried, even being armed, (I would be) but in many
>states, the prosecutors would be asking why he didn't call the police and
>remain inside.

In many ways I'm glad I don't live in a state that restricts you to
such indiginity.  Hattori aside (I'm going to let the grand jury view
the facts presented and decide), I wouldn't want to live in a place
where in order to protect yourself you have to cower in your bedroom
waiting for the police to arrive.  Out at the ranch, in the county my
property is located in, the county has 2 (yes, two) sheriffs cars to
cover an *entire* county.  I hope they are not busy at a traffic
accident, or engaged in a pursuit of a felon or somesuch.  Following
suit with this, when the country is invaded we should all cower in our
homes and let the military take care of it all.  Indeed, following
suit, when anything happens we should pass the responsibility to
someone else.  What a great way to live.  Baaaaaa.  Baaaaaa.




-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Chief of Tranquility  #My Opinions! NotIU's!#Purveyor of
EMT-D         # Base, Lawrence Co. IN # Legalize Explosives!#nontraditional
N9ISY (tech)  # Somewhere out on the  # Politicians prefer  #family values
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over# unarmed peasants.   #Space For Rent
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: skimmel@amex-trs.com (Steve Kimmel)
Subject: Re: Eva Clayton bio
Organization: American Express Travel Related Services
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 23:28:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.041820.2795@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>
>The Amendment
>mentions the militia, however this does not mean the National
>Guard: According the the Supreme Court, "militia" as used in
>the Second Amendment means all citizens "physically capable of
>acting in concert for the common defense." This is fairly close
>to the definition in current federal law (10 USC 311) of all
>males between the ages of 17 and 45. It also resembles the definition
>provided by such framers of the Constitution as Col. George Mason
>(of the Virginia Militia), "everyone, except for a few public officials."

Speaking of the militia, do you all remember the riots and looting after the
hurricane in Florida?  Hum..now that you mention it, neither do I.  What I
do remember are television reports of people(civilians) patroling          
their neighborhoods with shotguns & rifles and working on their houses with
guns near by.  The reports usually had the people saying that the national
guard had been by earlier in the evening and hadn't been seen since.  Of 
course maybe they could have just called 911. 
-- 
Steve Kimmel   N7ULW           Phoenix, AZ      |                         
Internet skimmel@amex-trs.com                   | my views only, in no way
UUCP	 uupsi!amexphx!skimmel                  | the views of my employer.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 09:44:31 GMT

In article <1ef50vINN24b@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU> yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:
}Terrorism in and of itself it cannot not produce a change in government.
}There is one exception: assassination of somebody like the President.  Lone
}tyrants can be and have been brought down by such means.  But modern
}collective tyrannies are often less susceptible.  There was nobody in, say,
}the former Soviet Union whose assassination would have changed the form of
}government.

Well, I don't know about you, but I like the idea that the President would
have to worry about getting assasinated by a mob of angry people if he
got tyrannical.

Your claim about the Soviet Union seems false, though, when you consider the
possibility of the assasination of Stalin prior to the death of Lenin.  I've
heard of historians arguing that if only Lenin had lived, the USSR would
have liberalized in the 1930s.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Whole Earth Magazine Supports (sort of) RKBA!
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 20:48:48 GMT


From the inside cover:

Gun control! Yow! Should we even bring this up? Yup: remember that
this magazine will take on most any topic. So is gun cotrol desirable
or not? Is it even possible? The many sides of this controversy have
become so entrenched and politicized that "debate" is euphemistic and
any attempt at resolution seems doomed to die in a grim fusillade of
howls, sneers, and threats. Agendas remain hidden. People seem to have
forgotten the underlying issues, but we haven't - see FIREARMS: NO
RIGHT IS AN ISLAND (p. 40).
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
GE: Perhaps not Evil Incarnate, but certainly close enough for
    government work.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Re: Open Carry, Why Not?
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 05:01:10 GMT

In article <1err2eINN45v@menudo.uh.edu> Chris Struble <mece3d@uh.jetson.edu> writes:
>Actually, a friend told me once that in Alaska, it is LEGAL to carry a
>gun 
>INTO a bank so long as you let the bank guard know you have it. Can 
>anyone confirm this? This sounds too wild to be true. 

i'd have to check, but i suspect its legal to carry in banks in
idaho.  unless you're careless and flash your gun, how would they
even know you had one?!?

drew 
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: the US elections...
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 06:22:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.002808.4508@csus.edu> altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim) writes:
>>Of course we're a little sensitive.  We're being hosed.  Nothing good
>>will come of it and we'll be hosed again.  Gun bans, which have been
>>proposed at the national level and implemented at the local level, are
>>the only end-point to that progression.

>Only if you allow that the extreme case in any argument will in the end
>predominate. Neither I nor Ashley have proposed a ban...

Unfortunately, most gun control laws are drafted by extremists. Even
apparently "reasonable" laws include loopholes that can and have
been abused to create effective bans.

>...I have in my posts said that I don't look forward to the day when
>I feel the need for a gun, but THAT I WILL PURCHASE ONE if that day arrives,

Since you are posting from California, and I assume you will not illegally
purchase a gun, you are mistaken: Someday, you may need a gun, but you
will not be able to purchase one when that day arrives. You will have to 
wait fifteen (15) days, due to the California waiting period, and have
first taken a required, non-existant safety course (as of January 1, 1993
handgun purchasers in California must have taken such a course; however
no state funds have been alocated for that course, nor have any private
courses been named as an acceptable alternative. This is an example
of an apparently reasonable law being abused to create a ban on handguns.)
If you think you can buy a gun on a day's notice, you are very
misinformed about existing gun control laws.

                                                       Frank Crary
                                                       CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.culture.japan
From: ckincy@mcs213f.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: Japanese exchange student killed in Louisiana...
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 00:35:14 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

Here I go again, costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars
to correct a trivial point.

In article <wf0y5su00iV2M2xJxp@andrew.cmu.edu> Rikiya Asano <ra01+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Mr. Coffman,
>
>               You are in error. Obviously, you are ignorant of the law.
>The law states(in laymen's terms) that tresspassing is a crime when:
>htere is a sign stating "do not trespass" and the individual has the
>intent to trespass. niether applies. Do you really know what the legal

This is not true.  It depends on the state.  For example, in Missouri,
neither is required for 2nd degree tresspass.  However, 2nd degree
trespass is an infraction, and carries less of a penalty than a 
speeding ticket.

Also, generally, in an urban area, any snooping around in a person's
yard is generally considered to be tresspassing.  Regardless of the
lack of presence of "keep out" signs.

cpk
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The "Invisible" Glock Mythology
Date: 16 Nov 92 18:33:48 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

Speaking of invisible stuff --- I've never had anybody check the contents
of a thermous.  Could be coffee --- could be gasoline, or something even 
MORE dangerous.   Or maybe it's just MY thermous they don't check.

Airport security is a joke.

Rick.
From: cower@SSD.intel.com (Rich Cower)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: NRA misses deadline for Supreme Court filing (WHY?)
Date: 16 Nov 92 23:08:00 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD), Intel



A relative heard a blurb on the TV news Saturday evening that the NRA and the
Fresno (he wasn't sure about this location) gun club had MISSED the filing 
deadline for taking the assualt weapon ban in California to the Supreme Court.

Does anyone have any more information on this? Does anyone know WHY? I find
this very disturbing, and am wondering why I continue to pay my dues to the
NRA.
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Guns & self defense
Date: 23 Nov 92 22:18:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Nov23.182443.13431@radian.uucp> markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr) writes:
>Let's try this: *I* hold a water pistol aimed at you, and you draw. Betcha
>you get wet first, and I may not at all. When do you want to try this
>experiment, and where?

Try something slightly different: Try holding _two_ people at "gun point"
with a paint ball gun (or, at least, don't use one of the super-soaker
"assault" water guns, that spray fire...). If the "victims" are within
2 meters of you, one could draw and fire (or if he's into martial arts,
simply take the gun away from you) before you could "hit" him.

>And then there's what may be the more common case, where someone jumps out
>and holds a gun to your head.

Actually, this sort of crime (as in the case of you example) generally
does _not_ involve firearms, but knives, etc... While owning a
gun won't help much in such situations, banning gun will also by 
of no use: The criminal doesn't need to use a gun, so (even if you 
could eliminate the firearms blackmarket) you wouldn't effect this
sort of crime.

>talk *reality*. Years ago, my dad got mugged. He was in his 60's. He was
>walking along the street, and two guys ran quietly up behind him, hit him with
>something, grabbed his wallet, and ran, before he was undizzy enough to see
>what had happened. Also, his hearing wasn't great. 

>C'mon, asshole. I'm sick and tired of this "everybody ought to carry a rod"
>mentality. Show me how it would work in this *REAL* situation, or take your
>stupid thread back to alt.guns.r.us.

Buy _any_ issue of American Rifleman. You will find a section called,
I believe, "The Armed Citizen", which includes half a dozen (or so) 
of the most colorful or unusual such cases that occured (in reality) 
during the last month. According to FBI statistics, there are 
real situations where owning a gun pervented a crime, that occur
80,000 times every year. According to studies that include unreported
cases, the number is actually over 1,000,000 per year.

Or, if you want a real case, a close friend of mine was cleaning 
a shotgun (in an apartment in Oakland.) When she was finished, she
racked a round, to make sure the action worked smoothly. This was
followed by the sound of broken glass, as a burgaler who _heard_
the sound of a shotgun being loaded broke _out_ of a second story 
window. That is a "*REAL* situation" and it seems to have worked 
quite well...

                                                     Frank Crary
                                                     CU Boulder
Organization: Senior, Biology, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 12:55:00 -0500 
From: Clifford Andrew Erickson <ce0o+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Japanese exchange student killed in Louisiana...
	<1992Nov17.215825.14103@jetsun.weitek.COM>

On 17-Nov-92 in Re: Japanese exchange stude..
user Nadja Adolf@jetsun.weite writes:
> 
>HA! Try Massachusetts where if someone is threatening your life in your
>own home, you must prove that you had no chance to flee if you hit back!
> 
> 
I believe that Massachusetts no longer has a "flight first" rule.  The
legislature ammended the laws several years ago after there was massive
public outcry when a woman was prosecuted for shooting an intruder.  As
I was told by the Worchester MA PD during a firearms training course,
you are NOT required to vacate your home in the face of an intruder.  
*****NOTE***** I am not a lawyer. Standard disclaimers apply.
LAter;
Cliff Erickson