HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: romigr@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:27:19 GMT

I hunt and have taken whitetale deer using a Smith model 29 44mag with
a six inch barrel with a 30 yard shot.

It only takes 1.5 seconds to remove it from my holster aim and shoot!

Yes I held rifle /pistol expert for 5 years in the USMC.

			RDR NRA/ILSA/USMC
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge)
Subject: Gun Banning in Madison, Wisconsin
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 5 Nov 92 13:19:15 CST

The mayor here in Madison, WI will try to push through some gun control
legislation in early 1993.  The gist of the proposal is to ban all handguns
that have no legitimate hunting purpose.  This means that .22 handguns (for
hunting rabbits) and handguns >= .357 magnum ( > 1000 ft-lbs for hunting 
deer and bear) are OK, while all others will be banned.  He initially 
wanted to push this through in the middle of deer hunting season, but
backed down on that.

I want sources about how past gun control legislation was racist (banning
Saturday Night Specials, and Dred Scott decision), discriminates against
the poor (expensive and powerfuls guns are OK, but can't have cheap guns),
won't keep guns out of criminal hands, ....  I do want sources on all 
information so I can't be accused of promoting propaganda.  What FTP sites
about RKBA are available?

Thanks for your help,

sean rutledge     "The computer can be a dipper with which to ladle
sean@cae.wisc.edu     out words of truth from a vast ocean of great
                         mysteries...."  Ikuro Choh, Digital Meditation

From: k@hprnd.rose.hp.com (Steve Kao)
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1992 18:20:28 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: The NRA and the Balkans Was: Re: Phill Hallam-Baker (was Re: Clinton = Death of the Second Amendment?)
Organization: HP Roseville Networks Division
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

Phill Hallam-Baker:
> Simply gainsaying what I say does not constitute an argument. A gun is
> designed in order to kill. That is it's purpose. Target practice and sports
> purposes do not require handguns nor any form of automatic weapon. Where I
> come from it is considered bad form to hunt grouse with an UZI.

Your ignorance is showing.  M16's and AK-47's are designed to wound, not
kill.  Target rifles are designed to make holes in the X-ring of paper
targets.  Large calibre handguns are designed to stop attacks.  (This is
done by either scaring off the attacker or by shooting him and causing
him to fall to the ground; neither necessarily causes the death of the
attacker.)

- Steve Kao
From: smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The Rush Blimp?
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:56:08 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
>This is impossible.  Cocaine and marijuana are illegal because they are
>addictive drugs, a single use of which will addict you and ruin your life.
>You're telling us that you've used these drugs and are neither addicted nor
>ruined?  You must be lying. (Or somebody else is.)

This is nonsense, _no_ drug ever invented that I've ever heard of is _so_
addictive that it could nail you on one use.  Cocaine has been accused of
this, but the tens of thousands of people have only tried it a few times
will attest that it is not.  Marijuana is even less addictive than cigar-
ettes, it has no more power to addict on the first use than cigarettes do,
maybe even a whole lot less.

Addiction, at least initially, is a _mental_ thing.  If you are mentally
predisposed to become addicted to things, one exposure of _anything_ you
like might be able to do it.  I've seen people addicted to brownie sundaes
that fast, but not cocaine.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: flc@cactus.org (Fred L. Chriswell)
Subject: Re: Texas Concealed Carry (Was: 2nd Ammendment)
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:18:21 GMT



	A slight correction:  in Texas, the issue is not *concealed* carry,
it's just carry.  The law makes no distinction.  You can't carry a pistol,
period.  The exception for "travelers" is not a statutorily defined lawful
carry, either, it's just a defense.  It does seem to work, however.  A few
years ago a member of a motorcycle gang had his pistol returned to him after
a brief confiscation.  He was traveling.

				--Fred

"Wishing doesn't make it so."


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: What gun bans might come about under Clinton?
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 03:08:42 GMT

<In article <1992Nov10.164907.1603@advtech.uswest.com> kdlin@advtech.uswest.com (David Lin) writes:
<   In article <40801@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> ph600fcy@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (Matthew Harrington) writes:
<   >People in the newsgroup are talking about the upcoming gun bans.  
<   >Has Clinton outright said that he supports bans of "assault" rifles
<   >and semi-autos?  How realistic and soon are the gun ban threats?
<   >....

<   This is a scary topic. Let me make sure that I understand the issue.
<   For example, if they ( whoever can be ) decide to ban Colt Sport HBAR
<   and/or Beretta 92FS, does it mean:

	"They" would either be the Clinton White House, via 
	Executive Order, or the Congress, via legislation.

<   (1) We cannot buy them any more.
<   or 
<   (2) We have to turn them in, if we own them.

	Both have happened already in various parts of the
	US. (1) has happened in Kalifornia, for example,
	while (2) has happened in New York City. 

	(2) is easier if the firearms have been registered;
	registration of so-called "assault weapons" has been
	proposed in both Houses of Congress in the last
	year. New York City registered so-called "assault
	rifles" a while back, promising to never misuse the
	registration lists. 

	Surprise! 

	Owners of these "bad" guns had a choice: turn the
	firearms in to the police for free, render the
	firearms permanently nonfunctional or remove them	
	from New York City.

	Furthermore, those who chose to remove them from the
	City had to sign affadavits to that effect. NYCPD
	officials have stated that they intend to run "spot
	checks" on these people from time to time just to
	make *sure* they are obeying the law.

	4th Amendment? 5th Amendment? Please don't bother
	our government officials when they are busy "fighting
	crime".

	Will Federal law require such things? No one knows
	at this time.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jimc@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Jim Cox)
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin Tx.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:35:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.210330.3850@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
> 
>force or two is/or wanted to use it?  If 10 feet is "knife range" why
>wasn't he knifed to death as he killed all those people?  Advantage gun -

You idiot, the advanage was fear.

-Lots of babble deleted.-

>marc colten

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
"I will not raise taxes on the middle class to pay for these programs."
     Bill Clinton's response to Susan Rook in the 3rd Presidential debate.

"Even though I disagree with Mr. Perot on how fast we can reduce the deficit
 and how much we can raise the taxes on the middle class..."
     Bill Clinton's closing remarks in the 3rd Presidential debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Jim Cox                            Internet: jimc@bartman.sps.mot.com
Phone: (512) 891-3182          UUCP Address: cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!otis!jimc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Need Better NRA Ads NOW !
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:53:35 GMT
Organization: The Cat Factory

In article <1992Nov5.193203.1664@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:

}In other words, if the police burst into your house with machine guns,
}wearing masks, without identifying themselves, you shouldn't even think
}about defending yourself?
}
}Innocent people are killed in that kind of raid.

Innocent people get killed trying to defend themselves in those
situations.  Criminals know the score and surrender.  They survive.

I don't approve of that sort of behavior on the part of the police,
either.  However, once the situation is going down, it's no time to argue
morality and the rights and wrongs of it.  You will be facing a squad of
heavily armed and armored professionals who think you're a dangerous
criminal.  If they see anything in your hand that _might_ be a gun they
will likely blow you away.  If you manage to shoot first, let alone hit
one of them, your chances of survival effectively go to zero.

That's the reality of it.  You can argue about what _should_ be all you
want.  The fact is your best bet is to put your hands on top of your head
and do whatever they tell you to do. _After_ they figure out they've got
the wrong house you can start making noises about lawyers and damages if
you want to.  At least you'll still be around to do it.

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483
Santa Monica, CA  90405
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Incumbent = Invulnerable? (Was: You can't fast forward through the next four years)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Nov4.171905.23975@brtph560.bnr.ca>
	<1992Nov5.01638.15165@ms.uky.edu>
	<1992Nov6.041628.672@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
	<1992Nov9.134701.6818@news.yale.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:47:16 GMT

<In article <1992Nov9.134701.6818@news.yale.edu> watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt) writes:

<Actually, I think the message that voters sent to Congress was "If you
<can win your primary, I'll still vote for you regardless of *anything*".
 
	It is worth noting that even the media establishment bought
	into the "year of upset" urban legend...or at least 
	pretended to.

	Cokie Roberts interrupted her canned anti-term-limits
	screed election night on one of the major TV networks
	to note that 93% of Congressional incumbents who ran 
	in the Nov. 3 election were re-elected...she also 
	apparently failed to see the irony in the moment.

<I think all the politicians who retired
<because they feared the impending voters' wrath are kicking themselves
<about now.

	Those who retired from the House of Representatives are
	counting their millions of dollars that they were allowed
	to convert from campaign funds to personal funds upon
	"retirement"...this was the last year such a conversion 
	was allowed, which certainly must have accounted for
	some of the solons nobly stepping down from their
	thrones.

<Strategy-wise, this means you have to work at defeating the undesireable
<incumbants at the primary level.
 
	Absolutely. It worked in Arkansas *against* virulent
	anti-freedom  Beryl Anthony, for example, and in 
	Colorado *for* NRA "A" rated Ben Nighthorse Cambell.

	In New Mexico, all 3 Congressmen were returned to office.
	Fortunately, all 3 are very pro-firearms....the same
	cannot be said for one of our Senators, Jeff Bingamen.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mwette@csi.jpl.nasa.gov (Matt Wette)
Subject: Re: Gun control laws proposed in Colorado
Originator: mwette@mr-ed
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Distribution: talk
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:00:43 GMT


In article <22271@drutx.ATT.COM>, dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
|>
|> There were some recent tragedies here in Colorado.  In separate incidents,
|> two teenagers and a state trooper were shot and killed.
|> 
|> As a result, State Senator Regis Groff and a few others are pushing for
|> state wide gun control laws -- specifically a waiting period on handguns
|> and a ban on so-called "assault weapons".  Governor Roy Romer said, "I
|> feel we need something like the Brady Bill in WHATEVER FORM IT TAKES"
|> [emphasis mine -- dlo].

I think you've hit the nail on the head here.  Gun control legislation
is not so much a product of carefully considered social policy as it
is a kneejerk reaction to occasional violent incidents.

	Brady incident =>
		Brady Bill

	Purdy incident =>
		California waiting periods and "assalt" weapon ban

	freeway shootings in LA  =>
		restrictive auto carry laws

	Killeen incident =>
		some legislation suggested
		(I've even heard of a push for carry permits.)

Any others?

I think this is why many people fear gun-control proponents so much.
Gun control is motivated more by emotion than reason.

Matt
-- 
mwette@csi.jpl.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: felons
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:35:08 GMT
Keywords: felons

In article <1992Nov9.153642.10302@news.yale.edu> watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt) writes:
>
>NPR did a story on this, claiming that felons were being "re-armed at
>taxpayer expense".
>
>There is a procedure (probably in the '68 GCA) by which persons
>disqualified from purchasing a firearm may have their rights restored.
>There is a division of the BATF staffed to deal with such requests (hence,
>the "at taxpayer expense" bit).  I don't know the details of the procedure,
>but I find it difficult to believe that persons convicted of violent
>crimes with firearms would qualify.

A former felon whose civil rights are restored after incarceration may
indeed buy firearms.  This applies to even person convicted of violent
crimes.  The procedure varies by state, some restore civil rights immediately,
some require a waiting period of a few years of good behavior, some never
restore their civil rights.  Federal law states a felon may own a firearm
if their civil rights are restored by their state, or (this part I'm fuzzy
on) if they receive permission from BATF.  BATF publishes the names of the
people they approve in the Federal Register.

>Apparently, the latest thrust is to eliminate this administrative
>procedure to restore firearm purchase rights.  What I haven't seen
>is any claim that anyone whose rights were so restored went on to
>commit a violent crime.

Josh Sugarman's book "NRA: Money, Firepower, Fear" has some examples of this.
Whether or not Sugarman is lying I don't know ...
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mwette@csi.jpl.nasa.gov (Matt Wette)
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Originator: mwette@mr-ed
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:32:34 GMT


In article <22282@drutx.ATT.COM>, dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov6.170211.18927@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
|> } So let's look at Killeen, again. There are no laws restricting the
|> } right of honest, law-abiding citizens to buy weapons.  Or on anyone
|> } else since it is in infringement of our rights to even ask us who
|> } we are, or make us wait while they see if the id we have is real.
|> } So maybe 50% of the people in the restaurant in Killeen were sitting
|> } there comfortably with .38's on them.  And the guy walks in with
|> } a semi-automatic rifle.  Do you agree that a nut would be more likely to
|> } do just that - go for the big weapon.
|> 
|> No.  First of all, how would such a guy know that 50% of the people
|> there were armed, let alone armed with .38's?  And even if he did know,
|> and intended to do them harm anyway, he would likely end up very dead
|> no matter how he was armed.
|> 
|> Secondly, in interviews among criminals serving time in prison, the common
|> theme was that what they feared the most was their intended victims being
|> armed.  Reality is that criminals do not go for bigger guns to face people
|> with smaller guns; they prefer to avoid armed people, period.

Marc,

Consider the case at an outdoor cafe in Israel (1982, I believe) where
three men armed with submachine guns entered with the intent of
massacre.  One innocent citizen was killed.  Two of the armed men were
killed and the other was captured.  The weapons here were more
"lethal" than in Killeen, but the outcome was quite different.  Think
anyone knowing about this outcome would care to try the same thing?

Matt
-- 
mwette@csi.jpl.nasa.gov
From: glngar01@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The "Invisible" Glock Mythology
Date: 13 Nov 92 16:13:15 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <1992Nov10.143645.2760@brandonu.ca>, hayes@brandonu.ca writes:
> I have read several references to the Glock pistol and the mythology of its
> non-existant signature in an X-Ray machine (obviously referring to an airport
> installation)...I am sure someone has to have pointed out (on the net) that
> such information is fallacious....it just isn't true...it is hogwash...etc.

The Glock was designed to have enough metal in the slide and frame alone to set
off all *airport* metal detectors and definitely shows up as a firearm on X-ray
machines.

Other metal detectors are not so sensitive. I saw a program called "American
Expose on Terrorism"(???) where the presentor goes to the Capitol to speak to
the security head. You plainly see him walk through the metal detector with
nary a beep but later while talking to the security chief he showed the
security head the (unloaded) Glock he had brought through security.
The security head was dumbfounded.(It appears the detector was set too low as
the people were annoyed that large amounts of change and keys set off the
detector [and rightly they should, how much steel is there in a small .22 or
.25acp?])

All security measures are useless if the people operating them do not do so
properly.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Gary Glen-Young     'The token South African'   
E-mail:glngar01@uctvax.uct.ac.za
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 God made men BIG & small, then Samuel Colt made them all equal...
 Now Gaston Glock has made some of us more equal than others.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Date: 13 Nov 1992 20:44:19 -0500
Organization: Yale Computer Science Department
NNTP-Posting-Host: cathy.na.cs.yale.edu

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1dv1i9INNfhh@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU> yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:
>>Thank you for providing an example of the kind of thing I was talking about
>>when I mentioned "incorrect ways to use tanks".  But what is your point?
>
>My point was that tanks aren't useful in revolutions.

Which is wrong.  It may be correct that tanks are not useful in most
situations in a guerrilla war.  But they will still have their uses.  The
Vietcong brought out tanks on occasion.

>>If tanks cannot be used correctly in a given situation, the authorities will
>>just have one less weapon they can use.  They still will have plenty of other
>>weapons.
>
>Yarvin insisted that tanks were useful so govts would always win.  Now
>he's admitting that they're irrelevant but insists that govts will,
>nevertheless, still always win.  Only this time he doesn't even have a
>bogus reason for that theory.

I am tired of dealing with someone who can see no middle ground between
saying a weapon is the ultimate war-winner, and saying the weapon is
completely useless.  Tanks are not the ultimate war-winner, nor are they
useless.  Neither are snipers.  Neither are attack helicopters.  Neither are
tear gas grenades.  That is why our military has plenty of all of them: so
it can select the weapon appropriate to the occasion.

>>Well, you have had the opportunity all along to provide details of how
>>somebody could resist the military, or resist a large local police force.
>
>And I've done so.

The article must not have reached my machine.  It surely wasn't one of the
ones I replied to.  Incidentally, "details" mean things like the sort of
weapons to be used, and the features of the terrain or of buildings which
make the resistance possible.

I hope you appreciate that this is a part of the argument I cannot provide,
for I am arguing that no such details exist.  I think that it is clearly
impossible for a small group of people to stand off a much larger one, if
the large group is well-armed.

--
Norman Yarvin						yarvin@cs.yale.edu
 "...for a professor must have a theory, as a dog must have fleas."
	-- H. L. Mencken
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt)
Subject: Re: You can't fast forward through the next four years
Originator: swatt@mickey.CS.Yale.Edu
Organization: Yale University, Computing & Information Systems
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 13:47:01 GMT


In article <1992Nov6.041628.672@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov5.01638.15165@ms.uky.edu> miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:
	<...>
|> >Well Libertarian voters, I haven't heard much about your "message" sent
|> >to Congress. Can anybody help me? Show me how your vote helped the RKBA cause.
|> >right...
|> 
|> And how did _your_ vote help that cause? Bush lost, and even if the
|> hypothetical "everyone in the NRA" had voted for him, he still would
|> have lost. At the same time, your voting for Bush _did_ send a message
|> to Congress: "I'll still vote for you, regardless of your position on
|> gun control." I just hope enough gun owners voted against Bush (I'd
|> have prefered for Marrou, but for Perot would do for this purpose), 
|> to counter the message you sent. I _hope_ Congress doesn't conclude
|> we can safely be ignored: We are going to need every possible bit
|> of congressional influence we can get.

Actually, I think the message that voters sent to Congress was "If you
can win your primary, I'll still vote for you regardless of *anything*".
In spite of all the negative feelings about Congress in general, and
the recent scandals in particular, being a sitting Congressperson is
still the a very secure job.  Here in CT, there were very few upsets
of incumbents; the most competitive races were the open seats created
(mostly) by redistricting.  I think all the politicians who retired
because they feared the impending voters' wrath are kicking themselves
about now.

Strategy-wise, this means you have to work at defeating the undesireable
incumbants at the primary level.
-- 
  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
From: strait@uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey C. Strait)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: felons
Summary: felons
Keywords: felons
Date: 8 Nov 92 18:01:59 GMT
Distribution: talk
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu

In a guest commentary in this mornings local paper (Champaign),
Sen. Paul Simon (Socialist, IL) slammed the NRA as supporting
"guns for felons".  He accused the NRA of opposing his legislation
aimmed at disallowing convicted felons from petitioning for
permission to buy a gun.

Can anyone educate me as to the substance of this bill, and
the NRA's position?  I read in a magazine that the NRA had
supported, in principle, most of it.

True to form, he went on to imply that the NRA's opposition
to waiting periods also demonstrates that the NRA is 
insensitive to the criminal misuse of guns.


Jeff
--
Jeff Strait                        | strait@uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu
University of Illinois             | or jstrait@coewl.cen.uiuc.edu 
Coordinated Science Lab, C&SRL     | PHONE:    (217) 333-6444
1308 W. Main, Urbana, IL 61801     | FAX:      (217) 244-1631