HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Seattle Buy-Back Update
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 02:20:09 GMT

In article <82472@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
> ...
>I agree with you that these programs [gun Buy-Backs] are a waste of time, 
>if their only purpose
>is to reduce crime and tragedy by reducing gun availability.   ...
>  On the other hand, who can say?  It is conceivable
>that, were it not for this program, a child might have gotten his hands on one
>of those guns and killed another child.  Is $65,000 worth it to avoid that kind
>of tragedy?  But, from a cold statistical point of view, such programs do almost
>nothing to reduce crime or gun availability.

  Because of a program like this, a person might start to drive to the
Buy-Back point in a very nervous state, and in doing so lose control of
the car and crash into a loaded School Bus, and cause it to perish in
a fiery accident, killing 48 children.  Would prohibiting Buy-Back
programs be worth it to avoid that kind of tragedy?

>...  To show that not everyone who owns a gun is happy with it.  For
>some people, the possession of the gun alone was greater than their fear of
>criminals.  Gun possession, for these people, went from the lesser of two evils
>to the greater of two evils.  

  Do people really live in fear of their own gun in the house?  Are
they really incapable of taking it to the police (or asking the police
to come and take it) or of selling it?  If only we could get rid of
the criminals so easily!

> ...

--henry schaffer
Newsgroups: 2,3,talk.politics.guns,fido.rtkba
From: dennis@bluemoon.rn.com (Dennis Carney)
Subject: PROponent -- Article "NRA MEMBERS SIGN ON..."
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 01:06:32 EDT

NRA MEMBERS SIGN ON...

       Well, for so many years the NRA membership was just a
sleeping giant.  They thought that they didn't have to worry about
gun control because the politicians only wanted the other fellow's
guns.  They were convinced that all those gloom and doom stories
about attacks on our Constitution and Bill of Rights were just an
overworked imagination of the lunatic fringe.  Hey, it could never
happen here.  But it DID happen here.  Right now there is a bill in
congress to repeal the Second Amendment and another to gather up
all handguns so that only those in power and those under their
direct command (military and police) will be allowed to be armed.
It's getting harder and harder to keep your head buried in the sand
when certain politicians are up-top kicking at your butt.
       One thing is clear, the "new" NRA leadership is not
something that was put in place to wake up the membership about gun
control.  It's the other way round.  The members woke up and voted
in new leadership that thinks this issue is as important as they
do.  Proof is two resolutions passed by the membership at the 1992
annual meeting in Salt Lake City.  One opposed a constitutional
convention and the other supported the rights of juries.
       The Con-Con resolution stated that the NRA members "oppose
any attempt to call for a Constitutional Convention for any purpose
whatever because it cannot be limited to a single issue and that
our right to keep and bear arms can be seriously eroded." AMEN.
       With regard to juries, the meeting of members resolved it
"upholds the Right and Power of juries to acquit a defendant
charged with violating an unconstitutional or unjust statute and be
it further RESOLVED, We also hold that it is the duty of courts to
inform juries of their full Rights and Powers."  AMEN, again!
       But get this, the membership made it clear they didn't make
a bunch of pious statements about rights to just gather dust in the
NRA Official Journal.  They also "memorialize the Board of
Directors to implement this resolution by all reasonable,
appropriate, and feasible means such as support of educational
efforts, legislation, and ballot initiatives."
       Over the years, PRO has been on the case of some "good old
boys" to get them to wake up and smell the coffee.  This proves
that they are waking up and they do smell something.  It's not
coffee though, its something in Congress that stinks.
_______________________________________________

"The jury has an unreviewable and unreversible power ... to acquit
in disregard of the instructions on law given by trial judges."

U.S. v. Dougherty (1972), U.S. Supreme Court
_______________________________________________

...

This is from:
    dennis@bluemoon.rn.com
---- The Soviet Union Died, But the Communists Live On ----
Newsgroups: 2,3,talk.politics.guns,fido.rtkba
From: dennis@bluemoon.rn.com (Dennis Carney)
Subject: PROponent -- Article "EDITOR'S GOOF..."
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 01:24:14 EDT

EDITOR'S GOOF...
       [In our last issue concerning the proposed legislation in
Dublin, we stated that this was the first time that we knew of that
a suburb would enact restrictive firearm legislation similar to
that of the larger, near-by metropolis.  Marc Guthrie, from
Cincinnati, a member of PRO called to inform us that we were
mistaken.  He told us that the city of Springdale, a suburb of
Cincinnati, enacted restrictive legislation shortly after
Cincinnati did.
       He also reminded this editor about Morton Grove, which is
near-by Chicago.  Morton Grove is the community that banned all
firearms from the hands of it's citizens.]

       Dennis Walker, co-editor
_______________________________________________________

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose *...

"Louisburg is not forgotten, nor Beau Sejour,
       nor Port Royal.
Many have already fled to the forest, and lurk
       on its outskirts,
Waiting with anxious hearts the dubious fate of
       to-morrow.
Arms have been taken from us, and war-like
       weapons of all kinds;
Nothing is left but the blacksmith's sledge and
       the scythe of the mower."
Then with a pleasant smile made answer
       the jovial farmer: -
"Safer are we unarmed, in the midst of our
       flocks and our cornfields..."


This is from:
    dennis@bluemoon.rn.com
---- The Soviet Union Died, But the Communists Live On ----
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Why a sawed-off shotgun?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 03:36:45 GMT

In <1992Sep9.205936.27220@rti.rti.org> jbs@rti.rti.org writes:

>The marshal who was killed was one of a group who, after shooting Weaver's
>dog without provocation in front of Weaver's 13-year-old son, Sam, pointed
>their guns at Sam, who pointed his own gun back. It's not clear who
>fired the first shot, but shooting began at that point and a family friend,
>Kevin Harris, who was behind Sam, shot the marshal after one of the
>marshalls had shot Sam. Sam was shot again, in the back, and killed by the
>marshals. Then and only then did one of the men (who was dressed in
>camouflage) identify himself to Harris as a federal marshal.

	As the risk of starting up the old SWAT killings debate again, is
there any indication that the marshall will go to trial for this?  Was
his conduct even reviewed?  It looks like justifiable homicide from this
desk, but I can't judge it from here.  Naturally, the press in my area
are too busy trying to play up the religious fundamentalist and survivalist
angles to provide any real facts, and quite naturally failed to mention
anything about Bo Gritz except that he is a political candidate.  As I
recall, this is the only press coverage he's been given.

	Conspiracy theorists would have a field day with the US media.


<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jheath@fieldofdreams.npirs.purdue.edu (Jim Heath)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Hand-loads for defens
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:27:22 GMT
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, Purdue University

# # In article <tmi.714982020@well.sf.ca.us> tmi@well.sf.ca.us (Peter Kasler) writes:
# # or at least don't get caught in a stupid lie, don't volunteer extraneous 
# # information, and most of all be sure you know what's happening. A seemingly 
# # innocent off the cuff remark could land you in prison, or in Georgia, in 
# # the electric chair.

This may not be the right group, but, to get capital punishment,
don't you have to commit first degree murder?  Does anyone have
to hand the definition(s) of the various degrees of murder and/or
manslaughter (usually accident I think???) or can they suggest a
good book with this information?
-- 
"Land of song, said the warrior bard,           Jim Heath
Though all the world betrays thee.
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard, (The Minstrel Boy)
One faithful harp will praise thee."         (Thomas Moore)
From: leone@GANDALF.SSW.COM (Bob Leone)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: JDs (was Re: Clinton in _Rolling Stone_ ...)
Date: 11 Sep 92 17:13:58 GMT

mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang) writes:

> If the money dried up, it is
> not obvious to me that the gangs would be able to steal enough guns
> from legitimate dealers to keep up their inventories. Take a look at
> Washington D.C. The gun control laws there are very strict. Yet the
> city is still awash in guns. Somebody must be bringing all these
> weapons into the city and selling them on the streets. But if the
> money dried up, would these weapons now be available for gangs to
> steal? I don't think so.

In the drug trade, a gun is a necessary "tool of the trade". You either have
a gun, or you are out of business. It wouldn't matter if the price went up 
from $100/gun to $1,000/gun. The gang members would just sell some of their 
gold chains and forego buying new Nike's. Even if the U.S. outlawed guns
and gun manufactors, the gangs would still get guns. If necessary, the
drug dealers would just smuggle them in, disguised as a cocaine shipment,
or start their own underground manufactoring facilities.

As long as we have a demand for illegal drugs, then we will have ultra-violent
people willing to take the risks to supply them. We should have learned that
lesson from Al Capone during the Alchohol Prohibition years. Instead we're
having to learn it all over again during the Drug Prohibition years. The
only way to stop the drug-gang violence is to legalize drugs. You hardly
ever hear about Coors deliverers staging drive-by shootings of Michelob
bottlers.

Bob Leone (leone@gandalf.ssw.com)
(The opinions expressed are my own.)

    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.  The strongest reason
    for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last
    resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
	   - Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, June 1776
	     1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: padeniso@eos.ncsu.edu (PAUL ANDREW DENISOWSKI)
Subject: Re: Re: A little on self defense...
Originator: padeniso@c00017-118dan.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: padeniso@eos.ncsu.edu (PAUL ANDREW DENISOWSKI)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:13:57 GMT




	First and foremost, I would like to say that I think the best way to
get out of a dangerous situation is to avoid them in the first place.  A
little judgement goes a long way.

	The point I would like to make is about so-called "gun defences" being
taught in many so-called martials arts schools.  As a long time student of 
both judo and karate, I think that teaching "gun defences", especially to
non-experts is dangerous and irresponsible.  The notion that you can "slap
the gun away" lures many people into a false sense of security.  The odds of
living through such a maneouvre are almost zero against a loaded and cocked
weapon.  Unless one is CERTAIN they are going to be shot, I would STRONGLY 
advise against trying to "slap the gun away."  There are VERY few things
worth getting shot over.

	On the self-defense shooting side, the issue boils down (in my
opinion) to stopping power.  If a large (.45, 9mm or 10mm) round stops
in the body of an approaching attacker, the kinetic energy should at least
stop him, if not knock him down.  The problem of over-penetration (the
"stabbing him with an ice-pick" effect) is the biggest one in self-defence
shooting -- if a high-calliber slug stops in the attacker's body, it should
at least buy the shooter enough time to fire again, if necessary.

	Lastly, I think people should keep in mind that a weapon can
easily be turned against the defender.  Unless you are skilled in the use
and esp. the retention of a weapon, it's best not to carry one at all.  The
last thing you want to do is give your assailant another weapon to attack
you with.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 05:48:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.023449.18064@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>Nope, not at all.  The first clause is about the distribution of
>>military power....

>Strangest of all, of course, is the fact that such an important political
>statement, instead of being enshrined in its own Amendment as one would 
>expect, got glued onto some bullshit about individuals owning firearms, 
>without even the benefit of a sentence break between them. Ah well, I guess 
>they were running short of ink and quills that day, and had to cut corners 
>wherever they could, huh?

You might want to take a close look at the First Amendment: It "glued"
such irrelevant things as freedom of religion, speach and assembly 
together, also without the benefit of a sentence break.

Also, there shouldn't be anything odd about combining a statement of
the need for a militia with the means to preserving one (individuals
owning firearms.)

                                                  Frank Crary
                                                  CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Re: Follow-up: the Seattle buy-back program
Date: 04 Sep 92 21:04:31 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
>alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:
>
>|> The guns will be melted down and cast into a statue or memorial for young
>|> people who have been killed by guns.
>
>A statue that stops at mid-thigh will be quite impressive, I'm sure.

*Chuckle*.

I'm sure they'll put a plaque on the statue, explaining that everything
above the knees was obliterated by the immense firepower of the "assault
weapons" used in these horrific crimes.  Good reason to ban them, no?

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 01:52:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.021505.12786@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au> ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>.... Well-regulated
>>means well-organized and well-run. As long as the militia itself is well-
>>regulated, I don't see that it makes diddly-squat difference whether its
>>brand-new trainees can shoot straight or not...
>
>I would have thought it made a lot of difference.  If they can't shoot
>straight they aren't much use in combat.  I'd suggest, in fact, that
>if they can't shoot straight and handle their weapons safely they
>aren't well organised, so by your definition shooting experience is
>clearly valuable.

I agree, but notice I said "brand-new trainees". It may be _desirable_ for
brand-new trainees to have proficiency, but it is not a prerequisite for
the militia to qualify as "well-regulated".

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:06:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.001404.16988@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
|> In article <BtI5Lz.5I9@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com> wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:
|> >In <1992Aug24.054700.8995@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
|> >>>If memory serves, "Fletcher's Political Works", pub'd in 1749,
|> >>>defines a "well-regulated militia" as a body of armed citizens
|> >>>not under control of an executive (when under control of an
|> >>>executive, presumably they are an army).  
|> >>Bully for Fletcher. Unfortunately for the NRA, the 2nd doesn't read
|> >>"A well-regulated militia (as defined by Fletcher) being necessary..."
|> >
|> >Unfortunately for you, you don't understand that what Fletcher did was
|> >to set down how terms were understood in the period (much closer to the
|> >writing of the Constitution than we are today).  
|> 
|> Why should I accept Fletcher as an authority on the meaning of the words,
|> Russ, any more than any other scholar? What's so special about him?
|> 
|> In fact, why should I even CONSULT Fletcher's works, when the meaning of
|> the Amendment is crystal clear (to me, at least), and doesn't require any 
|> necrotelepathy at all to "disambiguate" it?

In fact, why are you even bothering to follow this thread, since it is obvious to
everyone (except possibly you) that your mind is made up, as you yourself state
in the preceeding paragraph, and that you don't want to be confused by the facts,
reasonable arguments, or perfectly good citations.

Arguing your position by saying "nuh-uh!nuh-uh!nuh-uh!" to everything your
opponent says is a tactic even my three year old has given up as unproductive.

Grow up, Darcy.

-- 
Kirk Hays - NRA Life.
Start your day with a little civil disobedience.  Call BATF at 1-800-ATF-GUNS or
1-800-RUN-GUNS, tell them what you think of gun grabbers and government employees
that encourage people to narc on their neighbors.  Good for the soul.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 06:55:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.215015.2680@leela.cs.orst.edu> mcbeeb@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (Brian Mcbee) writes:
>Hmmmm. It is generally conceded that the United States has the most
>powerful military in the world.  And recent discussions on tpg have 
>convinced me that the US military could NOT conquer the population of
>the US.  Which leads to the conclusion that no other country could
>either.  So the question is:  If the job of the military is to protect
>the polulation of the US against foreign aggression, why bother having
>a standing military at all?

There's a difference between defeating foreign aggression with 20
million Americans dead and defeating foreign aggression with 100,000
Americans dead. If you can take the battle to your enemy, you can get a
lot of leverage out of it. Isn't it better to sink an enemy ship with
2,000 soldiers than to try to kill them one by one after they land on
US soil?

You could dig a hole with a shovel or a bulldozer so who needs
a bulldozer?


-- 
My opinions are my own.
Vote for Clinton: protect the right to keep and bear sporting goods.

Newsgroups: 2,3,talk.politics.guns,fido.rtkba
From: dennis@bluemoon.rn.com (Dennis Carney)
Subject: PROponent -- Article "DOONE" 'TOONIST...
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 01:16:02 EDT

"DOONE" 'TOONIST...

       So you are thumbing through the August 2, Sunday Dispatch
comics and as is often the case (for example, see Dec. '89
PROponent) you find something not so funny in the "Doonesbury"
strip.  "Cartoonist" G. B. Trudeau shows an anti-gun radio
talk-show host attempting to get around to presenting "a
responsible alternative viewpoint" to banning "assault rifles" but,
"Well, we couldn't find one, but we do have on hand NRA spokesguy
Bull Malone."  The NRA spokesman is shown defending the sporting
use of these weapons while the host "smirks".  Then in the last
panel a hunter is shown with an "assault rifle" holding up a small
antler fragment for his buddy's camera.  Um, ... can't you find a
bigger piece?, his buddy asks.  The hunter replies, "How about a
hoof?"
       Comments William R. Tonso, in The Gun Culture and its
Enemies, "Again, the straw-man sporting use theme, and the
perpetuation of the notion that such weapons are incredibly
powerful and destructive."  Hey!  Wait a minute! How can a book
copyrighted in 1990 be commenting on last weeks comics?  Its easy,
because he was talking about the first time he saw it in the May 7,
1989 Evansville (Ind.) Sunday Courier and Press.  Get a magnifying
glass and check the copyright date in the Dispatch strip: 1989.  As
Herr "Joe" Goebbels used to point out, its a shame not to repeat
good propaganda lies over and over.  Trudeau obviously agrees.
       So just what kind of guy is this Garretson Beekman Trudeau.
He is exactly the kind of person you would expect to be advocating
arms only for the rich and powerful upper crust with servitude left
for the masses.  He is a "poor little rich kid", a graduate of
old-line St. Paul's prep school ('66) and Yale ('70).  In case you
wondered where the name "doonesbury" comes from, it is a
combination of the expression "doone" which was St. Paul's slang
for "out to lunch" meaning confused or unaware and Charles
Pillsbury, his prep-school roommate.
       So exactly what kind of man-journalist uses his position in
the public eye to propagate lies designed to further the political
agenda of his rich pals?  Lies, whose consequence to the victims of
drugs and crime he could care less about.  We will let him tell you
himself in his own words as quoted by Lisa Birnbach in the Preppy
Handbook; "At college my three main interests were - in descending
order of importance - a steady supply of recreational drugs, a 2-S
draft deferment, and overthrowing the Nixon administration."  Since
then, I guess his current interests have been building on those.

..

This is from:
    dennis@bluemoon.rn.com
---- The Soviet Union Died, But the Communists Live On ----
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns