HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Article "APRIL 21, 1935 (New World Order?)"
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:56:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: headcrash.berkeley.edu

In article <962@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:

>I simply don't understand this fear of
>a Constitutional Convention.  It would have no more power to change the
>Constitution than the Congress does every day them meet.  Sure, a
>Constitution Convention could propose any change to the Constitution they
>like, including changing it completely.  But SO CAN CONGRESS!  In either
>case, the chances of the 3/4 of the States passing the "Newstates
>Constitution" or some other such non-sense is zero.

Well, all issues of modifying the Constitution asside, I don't think we
could automatically count on 3/4 of the States having to ratify the 
amendments. The last time a Constitutional Convention was called, in 1787,
the pre-existing ratification procedure was ignored: The Articles of 
Confederation specifically required _all_ of the State legislatures to
ratify any amendments to the Articles. However, the Convention totally
revised the system of government, and declared that the new Constitution was
valid if ratified by nine of the States, in specially called ratification
conventions (e.g. bypassing the State legistatures).

Today, the Constitution calls for 3/4 of the States to ratify any amendment
before it is valid. But what prevents a modern Constitutional Convention
from inventing whatever ratification process they like? (Other than the
fear of starting a civil war...)

					     Frank Crary
					     UC Berkeley
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: And they called it a "Police Riot!"
Keywords: rodney king / chicago '68 convention
Date: 13 Apr 92 07:06:17 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr13.010213.5102@athena.mit.edu> sybok@m4-035-17.MIT.EDU (The Terminator) writes:
>>One baton blow to these people was more than enough to
>>split skulls, break bones and cause concussions. Hitler would have
>>been proud of the Chicago police on that day.
>
>Everyone in favor of gun control raise your right hand.  (Picture of
>Hitler appears without his right arm locked in the Nazi salute.  Behind
>him, three huge flags bearing swastikas hang in a row.)

Do you think that it would help if the demonstrators had guns?
Don't you think this is a problem with the police, rather than a
gun control issue?
You seem to see guns as some sort of universal panacea. It
is very rare that there is *one* solution to a problem. Your
love of guns and perception of them as providing solutions
to societies problems seems like an unhealthy obsession.

-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
From: cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Serious Moonlighter)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Susan is still only thinking about herself
Date: 8 Apr 92 04:34:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: darkstar.32345
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz; Open Access Computing


In article <susan.702688890@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
>	Tell me, BTW, why didn't the state appeal against the sentence as
>being too lenient?
In the United States, it is _illegal_ for the prosecution to appeal a 
sentence. Boneheaded law in the worst sense of the word.

Marc Reeve
cmraman@ucscb.ucsc.edu
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Salmon (sic) Rushdie's insight into America
Date: 12 Apr 92 23:40:58 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <larryd.703051805@milton> larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto) writes:
>>>>...
>>>>>>> ... armed bodyguards ...
>>>>
>>>>The amusing thing in the entire Rushdie episode is he spent a good deal
>>>>of his time his prior to the Iranian threat expounding on how the
>>>>British government was fascist.  I suspect 1) he hasn't endeared himself
>>>
>>>I don't see anything amusing about this. Everyone has a right
>>>to the services of their government regardless of whether they
>>>voted for them.
>
>...Services of their government---three full-time, live-in, armed bodyguards
>ho ho ho...
>
Well what would you suggest that the British government does
about this unfortunate situation. It is not just a matter of the
rights of Rushdie, but a broader principle is involved, that
of freedom of speech. I am interested in what you would
see as a good solution.

>The ironic thing is that you aren't going to get those "services" if
>you are not politically connected, or in Rushdie's case, going to be
>an embarassment if you get bumped off.  Rushdie spent years telling
>and maybe even believing that the British (and US) governments were
>uncivilized.  Somewhere along the way, he lost sight of the fact that
>there *are* institutionally uncivilized governments.  Now he is in a
>pickle and *demanding* protection from a government he claimed was
>uncivilized.  Even better yet, he has lately been in the USA trying to
>get a little official help with his problem from Uncle Sam.

Don't you think that all citizens have rights, regardless
of their political opinion? In the case of Rushdie and the US,
I thought the US was meant to support freedom of speech. Many
US writers support Rushdie and would like to see their government
make a stand. 

>
-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
From: jrk@information-systems.east-anglia.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:18:24 GMT

In <1992Apr8.005718.15174@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>Well in Australia, the police recognise that private gun ownership
                               ^^^^^^^^^
The word you want is "assert".  You know the concept, what you've
been doing in this group instead of producing evidence to back up
your assertions.

>does not help minimise crime, and that it has the opposite
>effect.

Evidence?

--
Richard Kennaway     SYS, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Internet:  jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk               uucp:  ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: Clyde.Spencer@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Clyde Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and wha
Date: 9 Apr 92 06:55:00 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:143/223 - The Paul Revere Net, San Jose CA

DB>From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
DB>Date: 8 Apr 92 00:57:18 GMT
DB>Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia
DB>Message-ID: <1992Apr8.005718.15174@matilda.vut.edu.au>
DB>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

DB>Well in Australia, the police recognise that private gun ownership
DB>does not help minimise crime, and that it has the opposite
DB>effect. That is why the Police Associations plus the Chief
DB>Commissioners are right behind our gun laws, specifically
DB>the new ones which prohibit the ownership of guns for
DB>"self defence".

While Australian police may recognize the "obvious," have there been any
unbiased studies done in the country to objectively verify their
hypothesis?

 * SLMR 2.1a * An honest man's the noblest work of God.


3
--  
Clyde Spencer
UUCP: uts.amdahl.com!kennel!223!Clyde.Spencer
INTERNET: Clyde.Spencer@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG
"The views expressed above are those of Clyde Spencer only."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: clary@iastate.edu (Jeffrey S Clary)
Subject: Re: Guns and Rape
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 14:27:54 GMT

In <LAMBERT.92Apr15021440@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au> lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:

[most of discussion with Andy Freeman deleted]

>The UNSW library does not have a copy of Wright and Rossi's book, so I
>am forced to rely on Kleck's "Crime Control" paper, and book reviews
>to find out what it says.

[some Kleck stuff deleted]

>It is also interesting to note that the statistic "42% of prisoners who
>reported committing a violent crime or a burglary had run into an
>armed victim" (on page 12 of Kleck's paper) contradicts his claim (on
>the same page!) that "being threatened or shot by a gun-wielding
>victim is about as probable as arrest and substantially more probable
>than conviction or incarceration".

>To see this, consider what would happen if the chance of encountering
>an armed victim was the same as being imprisoned.  In a given
>criminal's career, one of these events must occur first.  Since they
>are (by assumption) equally likely.  50% of criminals will encounter
>an armed victim before they are imprisoned.  That is, 50% of criminals
>imprisoned for the first time will have encountered an armed victim.
>Wright and Rossi's study did not restrict itself to first time
>imprisoned criminals, but also included criminals who had been
>imprisoned multiple times.  These should be even more likely to have
>encountered an armed victim, so we should expect the percentage in
>Wright and Rossi's survey to be much more than 50%.  Since it is less,
>we can conclude that chance of *imprisonment* is greater than that of
>encountering an armed victim.
>
>Tim

Sorry, but your conclusion does not follow for several reasons.
Criminals who are shot and killed before being imprisoned are 
obviously not counted.  You also do not consider the possibility 
that a criminal may stop committing crimes after being threatened 
by a gun-wielding victim.  (Not likely, I'll admit ;-)  You offer 
no figures on how many times criminals encounter armed victims 
relative to how many times they are imprisoned.  You ignore the
possibility that criminals might vary in skill, which might affect
individually their relative chances of getting imprisoned or getting
threatened.  In short, your use of the 42% figure above is an 
oversimplification.

-- 
**************************************************************************
* It is better to be a live mouse than a dead lion.  * Jeffrey S. Clary  *
* It is better still to be a live lion, and usually  * clary@iastate.edu *
* easier.  -- (Paraphrase from memory of L.L.        *                   *
Newsgroups: 1,talk.politics.guns,fido.rtkba
From: dennis@bluemoon.rn.com (Dennis Carney)
Subject: PROponent March 1992 -- Article "HELP"
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 01:08:30 EDT

The following article is from the March 1992 issue of the PROponent,
the monthly newsletter published by The Peoples Rights Organization
(PRO), a pro gun, pro constitutional rights group based in Columbus,
Ohio.

As a member of the PRO -- Electronic Information Committee,
I am posting this article for information only. Questions or
comments may be directed to:

PEOPLES RIGHTS ORGANIZATION
5 E. Long St., Suite 412
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 268-0122

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

(Begin article "HELP" from March 1992 PROponent)

 
HELP...

     The April edition of the PROponent will be mailed to over
6,000 Second Amendment advocates.  This is a costly undertaking for
PRO, but a necessary one concerning the future of the Second
Amendment in Ohio and the rest of the United States.
     In the past, PRO pacs have mailed out endorsements for
Franklin County politicians only.  This will be a state wide rating
done by OCDC, and distributed by PRO.
     We need your help!  The cost of postage and printing is very
high.  To help PRO ease the burden of paying for this important
mailing, we are actively selling advertising space in the April
PROponent.  A space of a half-column long, and a column wide will
be available for $50.00.  This is an excellent opportunity for
firearm dealers, re-loaders, repairers and FFL license holders to
promote their business directly to prospective customers and to
help PRO help them to stay in business.
     If you are a proponent of the Second Amendment and own a
business such as a transmission shop, donut store, insurance agency
or any other type of business, this is an excellent opportunity to
attract customers that believe as you do.
     This is also an excellent opportunity for our readers to
become benefactors of the PROponent by purchasing ad space, and to
help inform many people about the candidates in the primary
election in May.
     If you have camera ready copy or a business card, there is no
additional charge.  If you need copy typeset, there is an
additional charge of $10.00.  This is less than most professional
printers would charge, and is very reasonable.  Typed copy is
acceptable at no extra charge.
     Help PRO to inform the voters of Ohio and to enable them to
cast an informed vote on June 5, 1992.

 
(End article "HELP" from March 1992 PROponent)

This is from:
    dennis@bluemoon.rn.com
---- The Soviet Union Died, But the Communists Live On ----
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: Kevin Langston <langston@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Originator: langston@eugene.convex.com
Reply-To: langston@convex.COM (Kevin Langston)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Technical Operations
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1992 13:13:48 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>sybok@m4-035-2.MIT.EDU (The Terminator) writes:
>>
>>Did you see "Pale Rider" with Clint Eastwood?  An EXCELLENT MOVIE about
>>a gunslinger who blows into town to clean it up; it turns out he's a priest.
>
>Instead of watching these gun-slinging movies, I suggest you watch
>a few Australian films, in order to see life in its fullest, and
>to get a more balanced perspective on the human experience.

    So of Mad Max, Crocodile Dundee, or The Man from Snowy River, which is
    more of a "balanced perspective on the human experience"??

-- 
----      Kevin Langston               Convex Computer Corporation
------    WORK: langston@convex.com    Technical Operations
--------  AKA:  langston@frontier.lonestar.org
"We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kossack@rice.edu (Jordan M Kossack)
Subject: Re: Pro-Freedom Billboards
Organization: Rice University
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 05:19:10 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.232507.11897@matilda.vut.edu.au>, db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
- >Give up your gun, just use 9-1-1 [picture of woman being raped, phone off-hook]
- 
- Great idea. Completely over the top and hysterical. It certainly
- shows the mind-set of the RKBAers. 

	Actually, I think it shows the true mindset of the anti-gun  
   folk.  Some of your previous articles seem to suggest that one 
   should call the police rather than responding to violence in kind.  
   Thus, I can not understand why you would object to Kyler setting 
   up a billboard to promote your ideals of non-violence.  


-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |   kossack@rice.edu  |  +1 713 270 9056  |  N5QVI   
----------------------------------------------------------------------  
    Don't put your kitty in the oven, if its life you want to save.   
It will cook from the inside out.  That's what they say about the microwave.                                                            -- FEO Y LOCO 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@m4-035-1.MIT.EDU (The Terminator)
Subject: Re: Gun-Free School Zones and Gun Cases
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 22:18:23 GMT

>Possibly because they weren't having any luck getting you to do
>anything about the other stuff going through.

What's this!?!  I made numerous phone calls and gave money to the ILA!
Where'd you get the idea that "they weren't having any luck getting you
to do anything about the other stuff going through"?

>I'm not a fan of the NRA, but it does give you plenty of opportunities
>to make a difference.  If you don't take advantage of them,

I did.

>it's
>rather silly to complain that you didn't have others.

:-<
From: cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Serious Moonlighter)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Salmon (sic) Rushdie's insight into America
Date: 10 Apr 92 03:07:55 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz; Open Access Computing


In article <1992Apr8.224635.22994@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>In article <32303@darkstar.ucsc.edu> cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Serious Moonlighter) writes:
>>
>>No, not really. The original post that started this whole thread was a
>>quote from a book of Salman Rushdie's in which he stated comtempt for the
>>RKBA as practiced in the United States. Therefore, I feel that I have a
>>pretty good idea of what his views are on the subject.
>
>I posted the quote. There was nothing about RKBA in it!

It was something to the effect that he thought that US society was so
violent because of the easy access to firearms. If that's not criticism of
the RKBA, I don't know what is. Unfortunately, it's scrolled off the UCSC
news server so I can't repost the original message.
>>As for my compassion or lack thereof, I didn't say
>>that Salman Rushdie shouldn't have protection, only that he should provide
>>for it himself. (of course, he can't in England, as armed bodyguards are
>
>Why should he? 

Because he is a private citizen, and not connected with the British
government in any way, shape, or form. Therefore, despite his notoriety, I
do not believe that the government should be charged with his protection.
Let him hire his own gunsels (oh dear, it's England, so he can't. Tough.)
or use his government connections to get a CCP.
>>only available for government officials except by special assignment by the
>>government, as in his case. So the poor English taxpayers foot the bill for
>>protecting a millionaire. Piffle.) 
>
>Is he a millionaire???? I doubt it. In any case, millionaires
>have rights too.

Yeah, in the US they have the right to keep and bear arms, same as everyone
else. I assume he's a millionaire because of the number of his books that
were sold as soon as the death sentence was pronounced. :) And I never said
that he had no rights, just that he shouldn't be being protected by the
government. Learn to read the actual words, rather than assuming they mean
something completely different.

Marc Reeve
cmraman@ucscb.ucsc.edu cmraman@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us
From: deanp@hplsla.hp.com (Dean Payne)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 00:27:03 GMT
Subject: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

>From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
>Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!

>>> I don't think non-violence works *all* the time. I am
>>> saying it *can* work in some situations and should be
>>> considered as one alternative. I was also threatened
>>> by an ex-friend with a chain saw and non-violence worked then ,too!

>>Now, how about some postings from people who were threatened by
>>chain saws and for whom non-violence DIDN'T work.  Speak up!

>If you read a previous posting of mine, you would
>have read that I *have* been threatetened by someone weilding
>a chain-saw! And non-violence worked for me in that case
>too!

Is a chainsaw counterexample still needed?

A Yakima (east of Seattle) resident was robbed under threat from a
chainsaw.  He gave the robbers his rings, but was having trouble
releasing the special clasps on his expensive watch.  They thought he
was resisting, and removed the watch themselves.  With the chainsaw.
The victim's left hand was never found.

The newspaper articles are buried somewhere in my clipping file, but one
of my old postings dated October 4, 1990, indicated that it happened in
the preceeding week.


Of course, nonviolence works.  Sometimes.  It worked for my SO.  It
worked for my brother.  It failed for two of my cousins.  One had
another option available, and saved his mother's life at the expense of
the life of the attacker (his own father).  The other cousin had no
choice but to submit to a swinging 2x4, and spent three weeks in a
hospital before brain surgeons could restore his comprehension of human
language.

I dislike being limited to just one course of action.

Dean
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: (In)sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Date: 11 Apr 92 01:43:55 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr10.111836.1813@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA) writes:
>In article <susan.702883650@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
>
>>	The problem is Roberta that too many of the male posters here
>>attempt to suggest that fighting is the _only_ solution available instead
>>of a last resort.   They talk about, "not turning the other cheek" nor
>>even attempting to avoid a fight, when the other result will basically
>>result in a lot more blood being spilled which is unnecessary.
>
>Bullshit, Suzy!  If you would listen to what's being said, instead of
>looking for things to justify your accusations of sexism, you would know
>that the use of lethal force is *always* considered an extreme measure,
>to be used only as an absolutely last resort.  Most, if not all, of the

Oh sure Roberta.... like in the case of the guy that said he
would kill for a penny; like in the case of the Terminator
saying OZ should be nuked; like in the case of the guy who said he
would attack the guy who tipped beer on me. There are none so blind...

>gunowners here have had enough firearms training to know that.  This is
>talk.politics.guns, not talk.fight.alternatives.  By the time we reach
>the stage of discussing guns, we have dismissed the other alternatives
>as inadequate for the particular situation.  BTW, why do you make sexist

Yes.... always the non-violent ways are dismissed. You live
in a violent society. You know no better.

>comments like "too many of the *male* posters here..."?  Many people post
>under aliases, or by their initials, so you don't know what sex they are,
>now do you?  Aren't you making just a bit of an assumption, based on their

One can tell. 

-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.