HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The New World Order
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:50:58 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Jul21.043439.17323@trl.oz.au>, djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:
> In article <4902@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
> >In article <1992Jul16.043214.13842@trl.oz.au>, djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:
> >> Sorry if I've come across as "knowing more than the authors of the US consti-
> >> tution", that was not my intention. I am merely voicing an opinion, one that
> >> is quite common although a minority view in t.p.g., that is based on the
> >> wording of the Constitution itself and other articles and quotes presented
> >> here and elsewhere. Quotes from those same people who wrote the Constitution
> >> support the idea that the 2nd amendment was written to provide for militia.
> >
> >You keep saying this, but it's not true.  Whenever evidence is presented to
> >the contrary, your argument is, "If that's what they meant, then why didn't
> >they write it that way in the Constitution?"  Does it occur to you that if
> >a given set of founding fathers are each quoted several times as advocating
> >UNRESTRICTED arming of the people, that they probably were NOT all of a
> >sudden of some arbitrarily DIFFERENT opinion during the time they were engaged 
> >in the activity of penning the Second Amendment?
> 
> Ever been on a committee? The individuals discuss differing views and then
> a vote is taken and the "majority" view is usually expressed as the view of
> the committee. You can quote from the individuals with the minority view as
> much as you like, it still doesn't change the result of the committee.
> The majority of quoted views by the FF on the reason for even putting in
> the 2nd amendment to the Constitution is 'militia'. That is what ended up
> being written in. Had it not been the majority view at the time then it
> would have ended up being written as something else.

I await with breathless anticipation your documented evidence that a majority
of the delegates (find even 20% and I'll give you ten net.points) were of
the opinion that free citizens should carry arms only for collective/militia
reasons, and not personal reasons.

(You argue like a woman.  Not any woman, mind you -- one PARTICULAR woman.)
-- 

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: draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn)
Subject: Background Checks on Mental Illness
Organization: Illinois Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 18:38:18 GMT

In article <1992Jul19.212639.25951@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com
(Don Baldwin) writes:
[...]
>Now, what about the psychiatric aspects of the background check?  Maybe
>involuntary commitment shouldn't be a selection criterion, as people are
>sometimes commited for the wrong reasons.  Maybe things like making a
>serious threat in conversation or using the insanity defense in court
>would be better?

On this matter, I have to plead ignorance.  I have some ideas about
how people with mental problems should be treated, but I haven't
studied the problem well enough to form a solid, internally consistent
policy.

Offhand, I think involuntary commitment should be a selection
criterion.  We'd probably want to limit it to cases where the
commitment is based on a well-founded medical diagnosis, so that
easily-obtainted short-term commitments for "observation" do not
result in any removal of rights.

It's my understanding that mentally ill meople are no more violent
than normal people, but I assume that involuntary commitment is
usually used only against people with violent tendencies or those with
a dangerously weak grip on reality.  I could be very wrong about this.

Regarding wrongful involuntary commitment, how is it handled
currently?  How do people get out of it?  Can they sue?  Can the have
the judgement of mental problems expunged from their record?

Is there a mental health equivalent of parole?
-- 

Mark Draughn    | <draughn@iitmax.iit.edu> or <SYSMARK@IITVAX> on BITNET
----------------+ Academic Computing Center, Illinois Institute of Technology
+1 312 567 5962 | 10 W. 31st Street, Chicago, Illinois  60616
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Honstage Situations (was Re: Shoot to Kill vs Shoot to Stop)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 02:11:49 GMT

In <3579@execu.execu.com> dont@execu.execu.com (Don Thompson) writes:

>	P.S. Naturally the safety of the innocent is most important and may
>preclude the use of deadly force at all.

	Who here saw the movie "48 Hours"?  <raise hands>  Remember the last
scene, where the bad guy has a good guy in front of him as a hostage, and
Nick Nolte does a quick aim&fire into the bad guys shoulder?  I'm _never_
going to do something like that.  But, it did cause some contemplation on this:

	Let's say you're armed, and a perp is armed and has a hostage.  It is
stupid to toss down your own gun since that removes any leverage you might
have with him -- if he tells you to "throw it down or she gets a bullet" you
might do well to remember that once she is shot you have no reason not to
empty your gun into the perp, plus any extra rounds you might have handy.  It
might very well be wise to back off, however, to reduce the threat he
perceives, but I can't see where tossing your gun is any solution.

	Now then, you haven't dropped your gun.  Will you be aiming for a
headshot at the perp and trust yourself to make that shot at the risk of
missing and hitting the hostage, or will you just try to wait it out?  If
you wait it out, you run the risk of the perp shooting at you, and thus being
wounded or killed with no reduction in the threat to the hostage.

	At this point the appropriate action might be to close the distance
and make a point-blank headshot on the perp (assume hostage is being held as
a shield, but perp's face is to the side for a clear field of vision), but
the perp might just shoot her and then try for you before you close the
distance.

	Given a good scoped rifle, I'd try the headshot.  With a handgun,
I honestly don't know.  Most likely I'd just back off and get behind some
cover, thus reducing my threat to him but also to the hostage and myself
without disarming myself.  With a shotgun, my only option seems to be to
back off and run like hell for a phone or SWAT team.

	Pointed question: how would your actions change if the hostage was
somebody you didn't know versus a wife, lover, SO, friend, or whatever?
The emotional urge to drop the gun to "save" your wife would be quite
powerful, I'd think.  Revenge should the perp shoot her would be just as
strong, and quite possibly more dangerous to your continued health.  I
don't doubt for a moment that the legality of my actions would not be of
any concern in this situation (thus ends the shoot-to-kill/stop debate).

	Just some more fodder for discussion.

<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,alt.politics.clinton
From: reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:33:51 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.210801.11139@ttinews.tti.com> reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland) (THAT'S ME) writes:
>
>and overlooking the fact that most muders in the US are concentrated in

Yeah, gotta stop them MUDERS...(I could have sworn I spell-checked this one).

>our major cities, all of which are smaller and more economically
>homogeneous than any city in Canada...)

Um... oops... (why'd they put the "s" key so close to the "e" key??).

I assume my meaning was clear.  Moral: don`t screw up and send your
message while you're halfway through rewording a sentence.  And if you
don't sleep, don't post.

=====================================================================
Reid Kneeland
reid@ttidca.tti.com  (that's MISTER reid@ttidca.tti.com to you!)
{philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,rdlvax,retix,rutgers}!ttidca!reid
Transaction Technology Inc., Santa Monica, CA, USA (310) 450-9111 x2499
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily etc etc...

Never trust a man who can count to 1,023 on his fingers.
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 30 Jul 1992 01:40:48 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <1992Jul29.185907.29542@cbfsb.cb.att.com> satwant@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (satwant.singh) writes:
>In his article langston@convex.COM (Kevin Langston) writes:
>>    Do you also have trouble parsing the following:
>>
>>    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free
>>    state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be 
>>    infringed."
>>
>Good comparable sentence!
>I have a slightly better one:
>
>	"A well-educated bureaucracy, being necessary to the development
>	of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books
>	shall not be infringed."

Unfortunately, while you may be able to lead someone to the local
library, you can't make him read anything there...  8(









--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Exclusionary Rule
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 14:26:12 GMT

In article <3750@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> dcwst8+@pitt.edu (David C Winters) writes:

>In article <1992Jul24.232009.22133@iitmax.iit.edu> draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn) writes:
>>If Bush is willing to trade away our gun rights for a broader death
>>penalty and a weaker exclusionary rule, I'd certainly be willing to
>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^
>Would someone mind doing me the favor of posting an explanation of what
>the "exclusionary rule" is, what it does, and the reasons for and
>against weakening it?

As I understand it, the exculsionary rule excludes evidence that was not 
gathered legally.  By weakening the exclusionary rule, evidence that was 
technically gathered in violation of the defendant's civil liberties would 
still be held as valid.

While most people are willing to admit that a typo on a search warrant 
should not exclude evidence, there is far too much chance, in my mind, that 
such increased police power would be abused.

We've departed from firearms almost completely.  Followups to talk.politics.
misc, please.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Subject: Re: Virginia Firearms Investigative Unit
Organization: Rice University, Houston, The Republic of Texas
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 06:18:41 GMT

In article <5054@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
- But now people admit that the existing law is either not being enforced 
- or is unenforceable.  If the latter, then maybe another law IS the answer.
- (You wanted to hear THAT, didn't you.)  If the former, how should it
- be enforced better?

	We don't have to enforce that law to reduce violent crime.  
   Since a large percentage of violent crime is committed by folk 
   known as recidivists, the simple solution is to not release the  
   violent felons until they are rehabilitated and no longer violent. 

	If firearms are "bad" or somehow "cause crime" then we need
   to disarm the police.  And the military.  And the FBI, DEA, Secret 
   Service, etc.  Until the government disarms, they have no moral 
   right to ask me to disarm. 

	Further, since Article I, Section 8 gives no mention of anti-
   firearms legislation, it would seem that the Tenth Amendment then
   expressly prohibits such, on the Federal level.  Thus, the Brady 
   Bill is obviously unconstitutional.  I can only assume that those 
   folk (in congress) who support it are idiots or don't give a rat's 
   arse about the constitution.  In either case, they shouldn't be in 
   office.  Oh well.  In the course of human events ...  



-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  "Don't dial 911;    
 kossack@rice.edu  |   Dial M1911A and let it ring seven times." 
  +1 713 240 2073  |         -- sybok@m37-332-1.MIT.EDU (The Terminator)
  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Re: buy-back
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:15:12 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:

>stedee@auto-trol.com (Steve Deemer) writes:
>>Never heard of people -stealing- guns for buyback programs, 

>Yep.  It's a fairly regular occurance.  When a "no questions asked" buy back 
>go into effect, burglaries go up, because you have a 100% safe "fence" to   
>buy your booty.

I have heard conflicting claims on this point.  Do you have any
references for your assertion?

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 30 Jul 92 12:11:33 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


re: George Orwell's "Animal Farm"

At the beginning, the line read "All animals are equal."

At the end, "...but some are more equal than others" had been added.

I think everyone should read this book.  And if you haven't read it
recently, go to the bookshelf and drag it out -- you need to read it
again.  The USA is heading in this direction.

Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-P  LPVa NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E"
Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia
Send e-mail for an application and more information
----------------------------------------------------------------
"...I am opposed to all attempts to license or restrict the arming of
individuals...I consider such laws a violation of civil liberty, 
subversive of democratic political institutions, and self-defeating
in their purpose."
        - Robert Heinlein, in a 1949 letter concerning "Red Planet"
-- 
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.
From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The New World Order
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:53:02 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education

In article <1992Jul21.043439.17323@trl.oz.au> djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:

>Ever been on a committee? The individuals discuss differing views and then
>a vote is taken and the "majority" view is usually expressed as the view of
>the committee. You can quote from the individuals with the minority view as
>much as you like, it still doesn't change the result of the committee.
>The majority of quoted views by the FF on the reason for even putting in
>the 2nd amendment to the Constitution is 'militia'. That is what ended up
>being written in. Had it not been the majority view at the time then it
>would have ended up being written as something else.

     I certainly don't argue the fact that the "militia" was the primary 
reasoning behind the second amendment.  However, it is not the *only* 
reasoning, nor is the right restricted to the militia.  The reasoning 
given *is* the militia, but the right is reserved to the people, without 
restriction.

>DJ...


===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
===========================================================================
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Re: Democratic platform explicitly demonstrates hypocrisy!
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:47:34 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

>If you were right, then cops wouldn't carry guns. You will say
>"but cops are TRAINED".

And then you still might be wrong.  What makes you think cops are
trained?  Training standards range from very good, in some areas, to
virtually non existent in some areas.  I know of at least one
jurisdiction where firearms qualifications consist of 18 rounds, twice a
year.

Cops carry handguns because they know that they are a very effective means
of self defense.  (Surprisingly, they are not necessarily the best means
of offence!)  Statistics show that 9 out of 10 times, the gun that saves
your life will be a handgun.

Rick.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: pfeiffer@nmsu.edu (Joe Pfeiffer)
Subject: Re: Ban the Killer of 300,000
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Jul16.034550.12716@trl.oz.au>
	<1992Jul16.205709.10363@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Jul21.041125.16249@trl.oz.au>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 22:40:55 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.041125.16249@trl.oz.au> djewell@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (David Jewell - Radio and Satellite Networks) writes:

   In article <1992Jul16.205709.10363@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
   >
   >There are very few good reasons to shoot to kill, and none come up in
   >civilian use.  (Maybe there are some in judicial or military use, but
   >that's not relevant in this discussion.)  There are plenty of good
   >reasons to use potentially deadly force to STOP someone.  Stopping
   >them may well result in their death, but that wasn't the purpose,
   >stopping them was.
   >
   >Think about the differences between shoot to kill and shoot to stop
   >and why they're relevant.
   >

   Agreed, but how many of the MILLIONS of gun owners in the US have the training
   to know the difference and the skill to stop without killing in a wide 
   variety of situations with any or all of their weapons. Not many I guess.

Come on, Dave.  You've been reading this group long enough to know
what Andy is talking about.  You know, by now, that when somebody says
``shoot to stop'' they don't mean ``shoot to wound.''  For that
matter, if you would just reread Andy's first paragraph you'll see all
the information necessary to demonstrate that your post was a waste of
bandwidth.

-Joe.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: Another Ooops wrong house!
Organization: The Instrumentality
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:25:39 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.

In article <1992Jul23.095806.2587@crash.cts.com> jca@crash.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes:
>Even Amerika's finest city can screw up and is run by screw ups.
>San Diego Police did a drug raid on a wrong house a couple of days ago.

There was a case here in Dallas a few weeks ago: seems one of the girls
living in the house refused some guy's advances, so he denounced the place
as a dope dealership. During the operation, one of the cops shot and killed
the girl's grandmother--the Glock he was carrying just mysteriously "went
off" while he was kicking down her bedroom door. No drugs were found.
The cop wasn't indicted. (And of course neither was the judge who issued
the warrant, the cop who ordered the raid...)

Ooops. Sorry about that. It's the war on drugs, you know. 

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:44:31 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.042911.18398@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>The Canadians have a competent and well resourced police force to
>enforce their gun control laws which have the support of their
>population.

We have "competent and well resourced police forces"?
You guys kill me.
Where exactly do you get your information about Canada?
Or do you just make it up?  Really.  I want to know.

On another point; let us assume that we Canadians did have a 'competent
and well resourced police force'.  Did it ever even cross your mind
that maybe we Canadians have low violent crime rates because our police
enforce our laws against VIOLENT CRIME!  Why would you assume that it is
effective enforcement of gun laws that make the difference and not just
effective enforcement period?

Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com