HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:25:05 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <84260@bcsaic.boeing.com>, rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:

> Nevertheless, he had argued for altering the restriction on conscientious
> objection on the grounds that the federal government could declare people
> "religiously scrupulous" as a means of disarming them.  He seemed to see the
> 2nd as affecting the armament of the state militias then. 

How you feel the first sentence implies the second is a total mystery.

> There is really
> little point in picking over Gerry's words, since it is by no means clear that
> those who ratified the final wording agreed with Gerry on its significance.

Despite the fact that they struck the religious clause primarily on the basis 
of his argument.

> I don't consider the National Guard to be "federally organized" in its nominal
> sense.  True, the federal government retains ultimate control, but it is
> nominally organized by state. 

So you see the Second as guaranteeing to the States the "right" to spend their
state effort and their state money to organize troops for the benefit of the
Federal government.  My, my, what a piece of prime pork; I bet the state reps
just drooled all over the idea of grabbing this "privilege."

> The 2nd might become an issue if the federal
> government decided to abolish the National Guard, replacing it with the
> federal armed forces.

But not, say, if the federal government decided to ABSORB the National Guard,
making it part of the federal armed forces?  These are essentially the same
action, for all practical purposes.  Perpich discovered that he wasn't
protected from it by the Second, or by anything else.

The Second Amendment has been decisive in numerous court cases concerning
individuals.  It has NEVER factored into any court cases between a state
and the federal government.

So far, you've said little about the intelligence of having a tool designed 
to prevent the tyranny of government placed ONLY in the hands of the
government.

> I suspect that the wording would
    ^^^^^^^
> have been considerably more restrictive of gun ownership if the lawmakers back
> then could have foreseen the level of gun-related crime that would appear two
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> hundred years hence in densely populated cities across a continent.

> The arguers were certainly thinking of a military force
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> having a chain of command.  Not a bunch of shopkeepers defending their property
> in the midst of a race riot.

For somebody who pooh-poohs the concept of "original intent," you seem to
have raised the art form to a new, psychic level.

> Guns don't kill people.  Guns make it easier for people to kill people.

And disarming citizens makes it easier for people to BE killed by people.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: Pistol Permits in NYC
Organization: Twilight Zone
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:53:36 GMT

In article <01GPMLDA833K8Y5OJR@HUSC3.HARVARD.EDU> zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>While perusing a copy of the New York Post, I came across the following ad:
>
>
>EDELMAN'S 
>PISTOL PERMIT SERVICE
>
>Has anyone tried dealing with these people?  What's the scoop?
>Do they really get you through the obstacles of the Sullivan Law?

	I've been there many times.  I did buy a Steven's 311R1a shotgun
	from them, used.  Turns out to have been missinf a firing pin, so
	I returned it about 5 weeks later.  They were very good about it.
	Gave me a full refund, no questions asked.

	They are a large shop.  They are also the sole east coast distributor
	(or perhaps that is the north east??) for Interarms.  Their prices are
	high IMNSHO for most new guns, though their used prices are not too bad
	but you have to be careful and know what you're buying so you don't
	get screwed.  In any case, as I said, they are good about returns.
	
	As far as CCW goes I cannot be sure, however I will bet that when
	you call them and get down to it, you will have to provide a just
	reason for wanting the permit.  If you cannot provide an acceptable
	one, either they'll tell you that you may as well forget it, or they'll
	bogus it for a few weeks and make interest on your refundable deposit.
	Can't say for sure either way, but they're friendly enough.

	NEVER go to American Outdoor Sports, just down the road from Edelman.
	They are the most dishonest, crooked snakes in the grass that I have
	ever dealt with.  Typical whining Brooklyn-transplanted-to-Long-Island
	stock, and obnoxious to boot.  They sold me a USED gun AS NEW and then
	gave me shit when I spoke up about it.

	-Andy V.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Where handguns are banned (was handguns and long guns)
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:59:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.035944.28463@iitmax.iit.edu> technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Kevin Kadow) writes:

>Interestingly, Cook County doesn't have a ban, though a number of the
>towns within have. Generally the places with the highest crime rates pass
>gun control laws, and (of course) the Council members  (who pass the laws)
>are exempted from them... e.g Chicago, Morton Grove, and Wilmette.

I believe people who have Federal Curio's and Relic's licences are also
exempted, but the exemption may be only for curio and relic handguns,
I don't know for certain.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: 1992 Senate Races: No Contest
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 19:37:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: N/I

In article <1992Oct07.153123.20133@brtph560.bnr.ca> mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030) writes:
> 
> >Clark L. Coleman listed senate races where there were differences between
> the candidates being pro or anti gun. 
> Clark forgot one senate race. In North Carolina Sanford(inc) vs Faircloth
> Mr. Sanford has voted anti gun and anti hunting every chance he had last 
> term. Although the GOA gave him an A rating the NRA gave him an F. I wonder
> if the GOA just uses their survey or do they check actual voting records. 
> Sanford seems to talk like he's on our side but when it comes time to vote
> he jumps right on the liberal bandwagon. Does anyone know how the GOA comes 
> up with their rating? 

Sounds to me like a mistake.  I have the GOA-originated "Pro-Gun Voting
Guide" from the November 1992 Guns & Ammo (also in the Nov. 1992 issues
of the other Petersen Publishing magazines "Hunting", and "Handguns").
In the Guns & Ammo version, Sanford is rated "B-" and Faircloth is "B".

Still more information is available in the November 1992 Shooting Times,
which contains a list of NRA-endorsed candidates -- Faircloth is on it.

And the October 1992 American Rifleman rates Sanford "F", Faircloth "A".

Finally, here's my favorite previous post on Sanford:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>Path: dg-rtp!leonardo!meyers
>From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
>Subject: Re: RKBA and defense of family
>Message-ID: <1991Nov21.222358.8891@dg-rtp.dg.com>
>Sender: meyers@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 22:23:58 GMT
>Distribution: usa
>References: <4568@public.BTR.COM> <28512@well.sf.ca.us>
>Organization: N/I
>Lines: 13
>
>In article <28512@well.sf.ca.us> rsl@well.sf.ca.us (Roy Stuart Levin) writes:
>[ ... ]
>>Don't laugh, Caligula made his horse a Senator.
>
>Well heck, North Carolina made a Horse's Ass a Senator ...   :-)
>Terry Sanford (D, NC):
>	-- Personally worth $4 million, just another ordinary joe, uh huh.
>	-- Rated a bigger congressional free spender than Ted Kennedy.
>	-- Currently "investigating" October Surprise for the Democrats.
>	-- Chairs Senate Ethics Committee, let 4 of the Keating 5 get away.
>	-- Voted anti-gun 5 times out of 5 in 1991, including a vote for the
>	   Brady Bill because it would bring NC more Federal money. (!)
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen. Terry Sanford, who as Governor of North Carolina refused Police protection
to a Civil Rights march, supports your Right to Keep and Bear Sporting Goods.
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: NRA Evaluation of Bush and Clinton
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:04:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Oct7.190630.28538@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, clc5q@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) writes:

> The latest NRA-PVF (Political Victory Fund) letter has a comparison of where
> Bush and Clinton stand in regards to the NRA and its concerns. Here it is:
> ...
> So, the two candidates are equally out of line with the NRA on the third item,
> but there is not much contest otherwise.

That's only if you use the word "stand" very loosely.

We know Clinton will (or will try his best to) make good on these positions.
We know Bush will take the short-term path of least resistance, which makes
all of HIS answers nothing but empty campaign promises.

     "Any way you look at this, you lose."  -- Simon & Garfunkel
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Re: A little on self defense (what should I carry ?)
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:37:12 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

I've been quite surprised at the number of querys that I got regarding 
my statement that I lock my class notes in my safe deposit box.  More than 
likely there will be quite a few that figure this out, but for the record
here is the response that I've been sending to email queries.  There have 
been close to a dozen so I guess this justifies posting.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

A netter asks:

> OK, I'll bite.  Why?  And why not your gun safe at home?

Mainly because it is a bit more secure.  Ayoob is as you may know more
concerned with the when of self defense than the how.  You spend at
least 50% of your time studying legal stuff in his introductory level
courses.

In most civilian shootings the main thing that matters is your state of
mind.  It is pretty much like that cop thing I was arguing a while back.
If you go before a jury you will have the opportunity to try to put them
in your head at the time you pulled the trigger.

This is where LFI comes in.  First of all, if you are a LFI graduate and
if Ayoob feels you are innocent, he will participate in your defense.

Any training you can document that you've received can be reviewed in
the court room.  This is why he uses videos so extensively.  They can
simply roll the video.  Thus at the end of the trial, you are judged by
12 people who instead of being liberal criminal coddlers, are LFI
graduates, except for the shooting portion.

One of the major keys to establishing your training is your class
notes.  They are valuable.  Ayoob recommends sending them to yourself
certified mail, then putting them in a safe place.  My bank box is
probably even safer than my gun safe.  Also I've had at least one
instructor recommend not keeping copies.  If there are any discrepancies
between them, that can complicate things.

Most of this is probably overkill for Washington State.  We generally
don't screw with people who have to shoot in self defense.

---
Rick.

Reduce violence in society.  Kill your TV.  Do it today.
From: kemasa@ghost.hac.com (Kemasa)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The true defense of gun ownership
Keywords: Guns,Constitution,Militia
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:28:30 GMT
Organization: Natural Order Nature Experiments (N.O.N.E.)

In article <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.

Do you happen to know what the militia is? It is quite obvious that you
don't. I suggest that you do a little more research before you make
such claims.

Amendment II

	"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
	State, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE
	INFRINGED"

The *PEOPLE*. The same people who have a right to free speech. The same
people who have a right to choose what religion they want. The Bill of
Rights talks about the Rights of the People, the citizens, you and I.

Do you really thing that the freedom of the press is only for organized
newspaper who are in business? NO! It is for *anyone* who want to create
a newspaper or similar things.

You also should take a look at what the framers had intended and one of
the reasons to put that Right down on paper. Some of them thought that
it was not needed since everyone knew that the people had this right.
Other were a bit more paranoid, but with good cause.

This Right is to prevent the government from ignoring the people (as it
is doing right now).

Also realize who fought the Revolutionary war. It was not the U.S. Army.
Think about that.

Use your ability to do some research and prove this to yourself.

If you are male and between the ages of 17 and 45, then YOU are in the
militia. I believe there are others who are also in the militia too,
but this is one part that I recall.
-- 



						 Kemasa.

Insanity is the best defense.

Sierra Club Leader	NRA Life Member		Pro-freedom	Pro-choice

e-mail address: kemasa@ghost.hac.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 03:23:07 GMT

In article <92283.54411.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>In <Bvv752.Ltw@creare.com>, Ian Brown writes:
>
>>(Much deleted...)
>
>>WRT economic plans: if nothing else, Clinton offers a change from the past
>>12 years, during which the economy, following Reagan's and Bush's trickle
>>down idea, has gone to hell in a hand basket (to borrow a cliche'.)  The
>>gap between the richest people and the poorest has gotten bigger, big
>>enough that the richest 1% of the population now has more money than the
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  This sounds like a measure of "wealth" to me.

>>poorest 90%.
>
>The top 1% has more than the bottom 90%?!?!  Source, please...
>
>If that were true, then if we doubled the income tax on the rich, then we can
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^
  This sounds like a tax on income to me, not a tax on wealth.

>eliminate the income tax entirely for the lowest 90% and RAISE revenue!
>
>I'm sure that this isn't right.  We couldn't run the government on the income
>of the top 1% for more than a few days (at $4.2 billion per day).  Besides,
>any economist will tell you that the bulk of income taxes come from the middle
>class.  If the top 1% control that much income, then the income tax would have
>to be horribly regressive.  I haven't even heard the most radical socialists
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  Oh well - you do bring up an interesting point - yes there is a
rather regressive aspect to the tax system which hits at the middle
class.  A book written several years ago "The Great Treasury Robbery"
gives details about how the richest people can and do avoid the high
tax rates paid by the middle class.  (Haven't you ever wondered about
the great amount of attention paid to such things as the capital gains
tax rates and the tax treatment of donated appreciated assets?  These
relate to things which directly benefit the wealthy and which are of
relatively little benefit to the middle and lower classes.)  This is
true even without any of the tax "loopholes" which usually require
skilled accountants/lawyers and large capital investments to pursue.

>claim that the tax system is THAT regressive!
> ...

--henry schaffer  n c state univ

Ob-t.p.g- Note that Amendment XXVII, which was written at the same
time as Amendment II, has the same strange/awkward use of commas.
From: jcbarnes@phoebe.acs.oakland.edu (Terson - Sod Lord)
Subject: Re: Armed Weapons
Organization: FryTools International
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:09:04 GMT

In article <swood.716099748@vela> swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:
:) 
:)                               THE ARMED ClTIZEN
:) 
:) Mere presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crime in
:) many instances, as shown by news reports sent to The Armed Citizen.  Shooting
:) usually can be justified only where crime constitutes an immediate, imminent
:) threat to life or limb or, in some circumstances, property.  The accounts
:) below are from clippings sent in by NRA Members and are reprinted from the
:) American Hunter magazine.
:) 
:) 
:) 
:) 
:)      John Parker was alone in his Racine, Wis., tavern one evening
:) when a pair of youthful gang members armed with sawed-off shotguns
:) burst through the door.  Parker grabbed a .357 Mag. from under the
:) counter and, as one of the thugs fired a blast at him, unleashed four
:) shots.  Parker received a slight hand wound, but killed both of his
:) assailants.  Police said both youths had long police records, and the
:) district attorney ruled that Parker acted in self-defense. (The
:) Journal Times, Racine, Wis., 1/15/92)
:) 

  I don't disagree with a man's right to bear arms, but I do wish to
point out that in the above clipping reprinted in American Hunter
magazine there are two-deaths (be them well-deserved or no) and one
injury as a direct result of guns.  They may protect... but they are a
double edged sword.

  I feel John's right to have a weapon is good, but I would like to
see that street punks like the one's that entered his store never get
their hands on a gun... although outlawing weapons really won't work,
mostly because those we are trying to take the weapons from will still
manage to get weapons.  I guess what I feel is the correct action, is
that before people just walk home with a gun, that they are trained in
it's use, know how to use it, and know it's dangers... This would
protect people from themselves! (Hopefully... there are still those
people who never realize that if it's raining they should wear a
raincoat or umbrella <grin>)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,rice.bizarre
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Subject: Re: Leonard Levy, "Original Intent", etc.
Organization: Draft Dodgers for Quayle and Clinton 
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 04:27:22 GMT

In article <7090@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com writes:
- > |> Well, it should be noted that if the original understanding of the Second
- > |> Amendment was *not* to reserve a right to individuals, the word "people"
- > |> in the Second Amendment means something far different from the word
- > |> "people" in the First Amendment.
                  [ Misunderstandings deleted.   - JMK ]   
- > Okay, I get it: you folks are trying to tell me that it's a bad idea, when
- > posting a response that's cross-posted to talk.politics.guns, to write
- > long sentences. Consider the lesson learned.
- 
- No.  It's just that after years of arguing about the Second Amendment,
- we tend to skim over the first clause of any long sentence as a minor
- declaratory preamble, and concentrate on the portion that appears after
- the comma.

	ROFL    

-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  "From each according to his naivete, 
  kossack@qvi.com  |   to each according to his greed"  
  +1 713 240 2073  |                         -- Jeff Orrok   
  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sjo@cci632.cci.com (Steve Owens)
Subject: Re: A Brady Bill Debate
Organization: [Computer Consoles, Inc., Rochester, NY
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 14:47:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.214114.10486@iitmax.iit.edu> technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Kevin Kadow) writes:
>I've got many friends who are pro-gun, and a few people I know are anti-gun,
>and from my experience the Brady Bill is perceived very differently by the
>two sides.
>
>	The anti-gun people see it as a "reasonable" restriction that simply
>acts as a delay to prevent "crimes of passion" and provide time for a background
>check to "keep dangerous weapons from getting into the wrong hands".

	The next time you see your anti-gun friends, ask them these
questions:

	1) What's to stop someone from committing a "crime of passion"
	   with a common kitchen knife?

	2) Assuming that you mean criminals and the mentally unstable
	   when you say "keep dangerous weapons from getting into the
	   wrong hands", how would this bill have saved Brady?

>-- 
>               Just say NO to unreasonable search and seizure!
>
>technews@iitmax.iit.edu                           kadokev@harpo.iit.edu
>                         My Employer Disagrees.


	Steve


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Others are revolted, I am unmoved                      Steven J Owens @ CCI
 Gripped by desires, I am unmoved                    (716) 482-5000 Ext 2867
 Hearing the wisdom of sages, I am unmoved                 sjo@op632.cci.com
 I move only in my own way." - Lu Yu
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: My response to newspaper bias - Part I
Date: 7 Oct 92 23:11:31 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Oct07.165813.20843@microsoft.com>, alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:

> It sure is nice of the local newspaper to provide the criminal
> community with a shopping list of homes in which they can find
> guns to steal.  And giving them the name of the people who live
> there is even better -- they can get the phone number and call
> ahead to make sure nobody's home.
> 
> I love it when the media behaves responsibly.

Hey -- the Fall River Herald News used to print the names, ages, and
home addresses of all the defendants convicted of streetwalking.  They
stopped only after one reader complained that their measurements and
phone numbers weren't disclosed.

Of course, getting back to the real subject, permits are public information.
It's stupid of the paper to print them, of course, but any enterprising
burglar could obtain the same list in another fashion.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: pettengi@ial3.jsc.nasa.gov (James B. Pettengill)
Subject: Gun Control
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Science Company
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:47:01 GMT

I was watching Phil Donahue the other day, 
his show was about the car-jacking craze
that seems to be going on.

There was a gentleman from some gun-grabbing
group who kept saying, "We need to get rid
of the guns!"

He wants to implement gun control like
Britain has.  What's the problem with this?
What kind of gun control does Britian have?
I'm confused, someone enlighten me, please.